Git 2.28-rc1 Released - Continues The Transition Towards SHA256 Plus Moving Off "Master"

[kloczek]

We have ~331,002,651 people and, last I saw, Trump was polling at around 45%. That means 55% of the population is lead by an idiot they don't want to be lead by. 55% is 182051458.05 people....or 180 million if we're doing rounding math in our head for a post on the internet.

OK. Can you tell how many percent had next candidate?
More than Trump?
Seems that you do not understand that voting is not about absolute number of citizens (with just born babies and those who are in vegetative state i hospitals) but about people with voting right,a d voting decision is done by ONLY those who voted,
I'm really surprised that you didn't know that ...

[bug77]

It's funny that so many people think this has anything to do with "inclusive language" when it's most certainly just about good programming practices, about sound software engineering practices. It makes perfect sense to not have a hardcoded name for the default branch throughout the git source code. To have the *possibility* to have a different name for this branch when creating a git repo makes perfect sense. Just google "git master branch name change" to see all the page hits. It's not an uncommon request and it has nothing to do with "inclusive language".

Edit: For example, look at this question on Stack Overflow:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...nch-to-release

There's another good programming practice called "convention over configuration"

[skeevy420]

OK. Can you tell how many percent had next candidate?
More than Trump?
Seems that you do not understand that voting is not about absolute number of citizens (with just born babies and those who are in vegetative state i hospitals) but about people with voting right,a d voting decision is done by ONLY those who voted,
I'm really surprised that you didn't know that ...

45-49% with a + or- 5% margin of error. It was flipped a couple of weeks ago in Trump's favor.

And I know how voting works, you're just being too technical for a bad joke where polling numbers were superimposed onto population numbers.

[kloczek]

And I know how voting works, you're just being too technical for a bad joke where polling numbers were superimposed onto population numbers.

So why did you mentiona about thise 331,002,651 people if waaay less have voting rights?
To create impression false "argument"?

[skeevy420]

So why did you mentiona about thise 331,002,651 people if waaay less have voting rights?
To create impression false "argument"?

The fuck are you babbling about now?

You made a joke post, I responded with a joke post, and now you're getting all technical and shit.

To be somewhat serious, the people in the polls aren't necessarily the same ones who are going to vote. Moreover, they may or may not have the right to vote. The polling numbers themselves create the impression of a false argument that anyone with an agenda can manipulate.

[Jabberwocky]

I'm so proud of this community

[lucrus]

It's funny that so many people think this has anything to do with "inclusive language" when it's most certainly just about good programming practices

Besides the aforementioned convention over configuration (thanks bug77 ) , there are other clues that suggest this has nothing to do with good programming practices.

1. Linus created git back in 2005 and today he still is a git code contributor
2. Linux source code is being kept into a git repo, and, since few days ago, they "need" to strip "master" word from it
3. Git has gone 15 years without worrying about the hardcoded "master" branch name, but now...
4. Pigs do not fly

[tomas]

Lucrus: Are you by any chance into programming yourself? Do you have any knowledge in software engineering practices? Are you using git for any non-trivial tasks? If you did, you would realize that removing this kind of harcoded assumption about the name of the default branch in git makes perfect sense. It's about making it configurable what the name of the default branch should be when creating the repo. And as you can see from the Stack Overflow issue that I linked to (if you would bother to click it and actually read it), you would also see that it makes perfect sense to have this be configurable. Not everyone wants their default branch to be called "master" since that name does not indicate the purpose of the branch. Therefore they would rather name it something like "develop" or "release". You know, sometimes the most logical explanation is also the true one. No reason to make it any more complicated (or paranoid) than it is.

[skeevy420]

tomas Master in the way we use it now has been around for 800 years; almost 400 years before the slave traders prefixed the word "slave" to it to describe their position in the hierarchy of things.

Master in the git meaning is the same as an audio or video master.

To go full retard on the matter. North Korea has their Supreme Leader. Should Taco Bell remove the Nachos Supreme because their food product references a dictator that starves his people?

[tomas]

skeevy420 What has that to do with anything I wrote? Do you even understand what the issue in git is about? Did you even read the Stack Overflow issue that i linked to?
You are perfectly allowed to call the default branch in your git repo anything you like: "slave", "whore", "serf", "master", "ruler of the universe". I don't care. The change is about giving the user the possibility to name the default branch anything else than "master" when creating a new git repo. Just because you think the name "master" describes the purpose of the branch in a good way does not mean that others do (as can be seen from the Stack Overflow question). Why would you not want to have that possibility?