3 ms·
Yes, and as it happens, “master” was a bad metaphor for what that branch actually is and does. It would have been a better metaphor for what is usually called “
by ksenzee 3y ago
Yes, and as it happens, “master” was a bad metaphor for what that branch actually is and does. It would have been a better metaphor for what is usually called “origin.”
- lobocinza 3y ago"main" isn't a better metaphor
- wakawaka28 3y agoIt's not a bad metaphor at all. I've never met anyone confused by it. People want to change it because of the political grifters, not for want of clarity.
- ksenzee 3y agoI am aware of the reasons why people decided to change it, and I am choosing not to argue about that here. I am, however, insisting that it is a bad metaphor. We all learned it the very first time we opened a git tutorial, so we accepted it as the way things were. But I am old enough to know what we meant by “master” long before git existed. Its meaning was not “a template you can use as a pattern for new work,” or “a branching point that many derivative works have in common.” A “master” is “a pristine original copy you can make many copies of.” Think about it.
- wakawaka28 3y agoYou're not wrong about the "old" meaning of "master" but in most projects, the master branch is expected to function and be reasonably up to date. So it is a reasonable jumping off point for both deployment and development. Consequently, Linus didn't make a mistake with that, and it is not a bad metaphor. There are many projects that don't work this way because they chose to violate conventions. That does not mean "master" is a bad choice of name, it means people are not conforming to the original pattern. Any other "main" type name would suffer from the exact same workflow dependence.