Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Git 2.28 Now Shipping With Feature For Configurable Default/Main Branch Name

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Git 2.28 Now Shipping With Feature For Configurable Default/Main Branch Name

    Phoronix: Git 2.28 Now Shipping With Feature For Configurable Default/Main Branch Name

    Git 2.28 is now officially out this Monday and features continued work on moving off the "master" default branch naming as well as the ongoing work around ultimately transitioning from SHA1 to SHA256 for hashing to prevent possible collisions...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-2.28-Released

  • #2
    no matter how you look at it "main" is just the better name for the main branch than any other name

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by karolherbst View Post
      no matter how you look at it "main" is just the better name for the main branch than any other name
      No matter? I still think "master" fits well for git-flow. If the "master" branch is considered to be the always-shippable branch, it is exactly what the master in audio production is. Where the term is from. "master" is a stage. "main" is not. "main" only says that this is the base or might even imply that this is where most of the work is happening. Which is not the case in git flow.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by aksdb View Post

        No matter? I still think "master" fits well for git-flow. If the "master" branch is considered to be the always-shippable branch, it is exactly what the master in audio production is. Where the term is from. "master" is a stage. "main" is not. "main" only says that this is the base or might even imply that this is where most of the work is happening. Which is not the case in git flow.
        but we are in code development and for the main development branch it's reasonable to call it main. I don't care one bit about whatever analogy or "origin" from where a word comes from.

        Also fake origin stories are fake.

        Comment


        • #5
          the tumor gets benign form...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by aksdb View Post

            No matter? I still think "master" fits well for git-flow. If the "master" branch is considered to be the always-shippable branch, it is exactly what the master in audio production is. Where the term is from. "master" is a stage. "main" is not. "main" only says that this is the base or might even imply that this is where most of the work is happening. Which is not the case in git flow.
            Neither is 'master' inherently always-shippable therefore above logic is flawed. Workflow is entirely project-specific, git does not mandate either.
            And to support more universal workflows/applications, 'main' arguably seems 'much' better name than your hermetic, audio-production analogue 'master'.
            Even if we use historical usage of the master-slave, it does not really apply to software development branch names, perhaps to development roles (like 'master' being main branch coordinator - say Torvals), but Git does not provide concept of roles either (ACL is kept outside of DVCS).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by karolherbst View Post
              no matter how you look at it "main" is just the better name for the main branch than any other name
              if only that were the real motivation behind this work...

              Comment


              • #8
                I just hope the GitHub change from "master" to "main" is not forced in existing repositories...

                Comment


                • #9
                  No matter how you look at it this is complete and utter nonsense. The rest of the world does not need to deal with all this USA inspired shitstorm.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                    I just hope the GitHub change from "master" to "main" is not forced in existing repositories...
                    Github has indicated that existing repos will continue to work. And I presume you are aware that you can have a git(hub) repo today without a master branch, although it is also true that it can be somewhat hard to accomplish/convert at the moment, and that at least as of today some workflow (some of which is external to git or github itself) defaults to the master branch when not otherwise specified, making lots of things either much harder to use, or just break entirely (because the workflow just presumes there is a master branch). I have no doubt that many organizations which decide to rename the branches will be finding trails of brokenness for months if not years.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X