4 ms·

> Well, you have said multiple ways that you have been swayed. I tried to address this in my first post, but don't mind elaborating. I think trunk is the bett

> Well, you have said multiple ways that you have been swayed. I tried to address this in my first post, but don't mind elaborating. I think trunk is the better term. I felt that way before all the absurdity surrounding master branches, but not so strongly that it had even occurred to me to set it as a git default and migrate my projects to use it. The sick power games of moral busybodies were causal in the sense that it started "a conversation" (ugh) about branch naming, with the result that I now use trunk on my own projects. If I had stuck with master despite preferring trunk, just to show them what's what, that is also being swayed by the opinions of busybodies, just in the other direction. The busybodies of the world also want me to wear a seatbelt, after all. We have a confluence of wants there. Similar deal with referring to various software components as slaves. I find that distasteful. I didn't need the language police to raise that topic to have that opinion. It's not even a good metaphor! Should I insist on using it just because the people who throw a hissyfit about blacklists share my dislike for that terminology? That is also being swayed by their opinions. Anyway: > Fossil is cool but alas it will never be mainstream. Indeed, a nice bit of software, pleasure to work with. Rather too narrowly tuned to D. Richard Hipp's needs to be mainstream. I proposed on the Fossil mailiing list (right before they shipped a built-in forum) to separate the core features into a libfossil so people could use it as a component of other systems, but for a few reasons (which I found persuasive fwiw) they don't plan to do so. I would still like to see pijul displace git, but as the years pass the odds of that steadily decrease. Ah well.

wakawaka28 3y ago
I used to find git slightly confusing as well, but it just takes a bit of patience to learn. The last thing we need is a dozen roughly-equivalent VCS tools to worry about, so I'm sticking with git. People can come up with aliases or something for people who don't get it. >If I had stuck with master despite preferring trunk, just to show them what's what, that is also being swayed by the opinions of busybodies, just in the other direction. This is pretty subtle. I would discourage the use of unconventional names for your branches, just because it creates more confusion. Were you influenced if you kept things the same because you didn't like the idea of change or the messengers asking you to do it? I guess technically, you could be psychologically influenced and not make any actual change. But to other people, your state of mind is not the object of interest, especially if it produces no outcome. They only care if you made the change or not. Thus, if you were not persuaded to change anything, then you weren't influenced. >Similar deal with referring to various software components as slaves. [...] It's not even a good metaphor! It is a good metaphor in fact. Slaves are workers that take assignments from their owner (and not others), among other things. At least in some contexts, you could list several things that a master/supervisor does that directly mirror how human slaves operate. If it was a bad metaphor, semantically speaking, then people would be legitimately confused when it was used. Nobody ever said they found it confusing before the language police rolled up. I will admit that having "slave" stuff is perhaps in poor taste. You could make a far better case for that than the use of the word "master". The trouble with all of this is, language policing is not primarily about the words. We won't be rid of the language police after making the suggested changes. They want power. Language and preferences are coming full circle to where "colored people" is bad but "person of color" is good, segregation and discrimination are ok again (especially to the exclusion of whites), etc. Martin Luther King would be appalled at the modern left.
- samatman 3y ago
  > I would discourage the use of unconventional names for your branches, just because it creates more confusion trunk has been the conventional name for the trunk branch of version control systems longer than anything else. "Child branches are branches that have a parent; a branch without a parent is referred to as the trunk or the mainline." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_(version_control) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_(version_control) git provides a way to determine which branch is the trunk, which it calls the default. Software which tries to guess at this is already broken, and for software which does it correctly, the name itself is completely irrelevant. > It is a good metaphor in fact. I disagree. In databases, for one example, what was conventionally called the slave is a replica. Is a slave a replica of his master? No, that's absurd. There are contexts in which one part of the system controls things, and the other is purely responsive or helpful, and I will grant you that in those cases, master/slave is a coherent metaphor, but the word "servant" can be used without loss of expressive power, and I see adequate reason to prefer that usage. In most cases where master/slave is used, master/replica or primary/secondary are in fact clearer than master/servant. > The trouble with all of this is, language policing is not primarily about the words. We won't be rid of the language police after making the suggested changes. Well yes, of course, we agree vigorously on this. I ask you: how does one grant these control freaks the least possible power? Clearly bowing to their every whim is a losing approach: if someone wants to pick a fight with me about the use of the term "blacklist", very well, they'll get their fight, because I won't stop. But making a point of using terminology just because they don't like it is granting them a certain power as well, through the very act of rebellion. I genuinely think trunk is the best term for a trunk branch, so I use it. If you think master is better, I will disagree, and say no, trunk is better! But I won't call it offensive, that's just silly.
  - wakawaka28 3y ago
    >Well yes, of course, we agree vigorously on this. I ask you: how does one grant these control freaks the least possible power? Clearly bowing to their every whim is a losing approach: if someone wants to pick a fight with me about the use of the term "blacklist", very well, they'll get their fight, because I won't stop. I've been wondering about this myself. It seems to be part of a communist-adjacent power grab. The objective is to install useful idiots in all the right places so certain people can use fear to keep others in line, and ultimately advance more ambitious agendas of oppression. I'm still doing research on this subject. I just found a blog today at https://newdiscourses.com https://newdiscourses.com that seems dedicated to fighting this fight. It's relatively high-IQ stuff. Anyway I agree that "trunk" is a better name than "master" or "main" for a new version control system, at least if it uses "branch" terminology. But git has been established for many years and we are only talking about an inconvenient change because of activists. Simply ignoring the activists and continuing as usual is not "granting them power"... Unless you are making a change away from something else over to "master" naming lol. Unfortunately, there is no consistent meaning for what the master/main branch actually is out in the wild. It could be the stable branch or it could be the development branch, or it could be an old ref retained out of fear by someone who decided to jump on the renaming bandwagon. But I think for developer-centric projects, master is the stable dev branch. For user-centric project, it is often the last stable release branch. Both of these make sense.
pmeunier 3y ago
> I would still like to see pijul displace git, but as the years pass the odds of that steadily decrease. Ah well. Why would that be? Pijul is getting better, simpler and faster all the time.
- wakawaka28 3y ago
  Nearly everything and everyone uses git, and git is awfully good. If you have to learn git already, why would you learn a tool that is 10% easier than git, probably slower, and alien to everyone else? Ultimately, you can't make them share your enthusiasm for a tool that is just an incomplete imitation of something they are already expert with.

wakawaka28 3y ago

I used to find git slightly confusing as well, but it just takes a bit of patience to learn. The last thing we need is a dozen roughly-equivalent VCS tools to worry about, so I'm sticking with git. People can come up with aliases or something for people who don't get it. >If I had stuck with master despite preferring trunk, just to show them what's what, that is also being swayed by the opinions of busybodies, just in the other direction. This is pretty subtle. I would discourage the use of unconventional names for your branches, just because it creates more confusion. Were you influenced if you kept things the same because you didn't like the idea of change or the messengers asking you to do it? I guess technically, you could be psychologically influenced and not make any actual change. But to other people, your state of mind is not the object of interest, especially if it produces no outcome. They only care if you made the change or not. Thus, if you were not persuaded to change anything, then you weren't influenced. >Similar deal with referring to various software components as slaves. [...] It's not even a good metaphor! It is a good metaphor in fact. Slaves are workers that take assignments from their owner (and not others), among other things. At least in some contexts, you could list several things that a master/supervisor does that directly mirror how human slaves operate. If it was a bad metaphor, semantically speaking, then people would be legitimately confused when it was used. Nobody ever said they found it confusing before the language police rolled up. I will admit that having "slave" stuff is perhaps in poor taste. You could make a far better case for that than the use of the word "master". The trouble with all of this is, language policing is not primarily about the words. We won't be rid of the language police after making the suggested changes. They want power. Language and preferences are coming full circle to where "colored people" is bad but "person of color" is good, segregation and discrimination are ok again (especially to the exclusion of whites), etc. Martin Luther King would be appalled at the modern left.

samatman 3y ago
> I would discourage the use of unconventional names for your branches, just because it creates more confusion trunk has been the conventional name for the trunk branch of version control systems longer than anything else. "Child branches are branches that have a parent; a branch without a parent is referred to as the trunk or the mainline." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_(version_control) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_(version_control) git provides a way to determine which branch is the trunk, which it calls the default. Software which tries to guess at this is already broken, and for software which does it correctly, the name itself is completely irrelevant. > It is a good metaphor in fact. I disagree. In databases, for one example, what was conventionally called the slave is a replica. Is a slave a replica of his master? No, that's absurd. There are contexts in which one part of the system controls things, and the other is purely responsive or helpful, and I will grant you that in those cases, master/slave is a coherent metaphor, but the word "servant" can be used without loss of expressive power, and I see adequate reason to prefer that usage. In most cases where master/slave is used, master/replica or primary/secondary are in fact clearer than master/servant. > The trouble with all of this is, language policing is not primarily about the words. We won't be rid of the language police after making the suggested changes. Well yes, of course, we agree vigorously on this. I ask you: how does one grant these control freaks the least possible power? Clearly bowing to their every whim is a losing approach: if someone wants to pick a fight with me about the use of the term "blacklist", very well, they'll get their fight, because I won't stop. But making a point of using terminology just because they don't like it is granting them a certain power as well, through the very act of rebellion. I genuinely think trunk is the best term for a trunk branch, so I use it. If you think master is better, I will disagree, and say no, trunk is better! But I won't call it offensive, that's just silly.
- wakawaka28 3y ago
  >Well yes, of course, we agree vigorously on this. I ask you: how does one grant these control freaks the least possible power? Clearly bowing to their every whim is a losing approach: if someone wants to pick a fight with me about the use of the term "blacklist", very well, they'll get their fight, because I won't stop. I've been wondering about this myself. It seems to be part of a communist-adjacent power grab. The objective is to install useful idiots in all the right places so certain people can use fear to keep others in line, and ultimately advance more ambitious agendas of oppression. I'm still doing research on this subject. I just found a blog today at https://newdiscourses.com https://newdiscourses.com that seems dedicated to fighting this fight. It's relatively high-IQ stuff. Anyway I agree that "trunk" is a better name than "master" or "main" for a new version control system, at least if it uses "branch" terminology. But git has been established for many years and we are only talking about an inconvenient change because of activists. Simply ignoring the activists and continuing as usual is not "granting them power"... Unless you are making a change away from something else over to "master" naming lol. Unfortunately, there is no consistent meaning for what the master/main branch actually is out in the wild. It could be the stable branch or it could be the development branch, or it could be an old ref retained out of fear by someone who decided to jump on the renaming bandwagon. But I think for developer-centric projects, master is the stable dev branch. For user-centric project, it is often the last stable release branch. Both of these make sense.

pmeunier 3y ago

> I would still like to see pijul displace git, but as the years pass the odds of that steadily decrease. Ah well. Why would that be? Pijul is getting better, simpler and faster all the time.

wakawaka28 3y ago
Nearly everything and everyone uses git, and git is awfully good. If you have to learn git already, why would you learn a tool that is 10% easier than git, probably slower, and alien to everyone else? Ultimately, you can't make them share your enthusiasm for a tool that is just an incomplete imitation of something they are already expert with.