Git 2.31 Released With Moving More Of The Bisecting Code To C

[lyamc]

But others have.

Yeah and Hitler wore pants. Are we all hypocrites now?

So you're treating one side as a uniform group and the other side as independent people, which is inconsistent.

Check what I actually said:

I find it ironic that the same people who are so concerned about the damage from using the word "master"

Notice how I’m talking about a specific type of PERSON.

[kretikus]

"Continued work on preparing Git itself to be able to use the main branch name by default rather than master."
Yup, spend more time on nonsense, it will help developers in their work

As a multilingual person, I have understood that words have different meaning depending on the context, so I do not care so much. I can distinguish.

But if people want to spent time in changing something I do not care about it, I do not care about it... Let them be...

[linuxgeex]

Personally I always thought "master" was a stupid name for the main branch. I thought "trunk" or "main" or "work" or even "DragonsBeHere" would have been better names.

I also thought maybe the main branch should be called "release" or "stable" and that would give new users a clue that they should do their work on ... branches.

"master" connotes that it is somehow in control of everything. AFAIK literally nobody does their maintainership work in "master". They checkout the branch which has already received the most maintenance towards a release, create a release branch off that, then announce to team members that they should update their branches to merge against that branch, then they pull those prepared branches, resolve whatever conflicts, perform whatever testing, iterate back over the above process as required to meet objectives, then tag it and drop the branch. "master" is *never* *ever* where where that control is exercised. At least, not when there's more than one developer.

[slalomsk8er]

Personally I always thought "master" was a stupid name for the main branch. I thought "trunk" or "main" or "work" or even "DragonsBeHere" would have been better names.

I also thought maybe the main branch should be called "release" or "stable" and that would give new users a clue that they should do their work on ... branches.

"master" connotes that it is somehow in control of everything. AFAIK literally nobody does their maintainership work in "master". They checkout the branch which has already received the most maintenance towards a release, create a release branch off that, then announce to team members that they should update their branches to merge against that branch, then they pull those prepared branches, resolve whatever conflicts, perform whatever testing, iterate back over the above process as required to meet objectives, then tag it and drop the branch. "master" is *never* *ever* where where that control is exercised. At least, not when there's more than one developer.

For me it invoked master as in mastering records. so the master is the version from which all copies are made. Trunk, like in version tree, I would prefer - I like trees.
Main as in main voltage is also quite hardcore.
I guess, It's a hard choice between music and nature metaphors. But I'm lazy, so I will stick with master, no motivation to change what already works.

[linuxgeex]

For me it invoked master as in mastering records. so the master is the version from which all copies are made. Trunk, like in version tree, I would prefer - I like trees.
Main as in main voltage is also quite hardcore.
I guess, It's a hard choice between music and nature metaphors. But I'm lazy, so I will stick with master, no motivation to change what already works.

That's another example of a misuse of "master". Really what they mean is "prime", as in first-generation. Except where it refers to a final copy ("mastering", "re-mastering") prepared by the mixing engineer, or mix-master. It's really a reference to the work of that individual which will control the final product... I guess that's what you meant lol. Yeah. I guess that copy is in a very weak sense directing (by example) the machinery in the replication process.

[slalomsk8er]

That's another example of a misuse of "master". Really what they mean is "prime", as in first-generation. Except where it refers to a final copy ("mastering", "re-mastering") prepared by the mixing engineer, or mix-master. It's really a reference to the work of that individual which will control the final product... I guess that's what you meant lol. Yeah. I guess that copy is in a very weak sense directing (by example) the machinery in the replication process.

I don't think so. I guess it's called master because of the authority it has - it's the authoritative source. Because master is a shorter word and easier to say, it won out.

[linuxgeex]

I don't think so. I guess it's called master because of the authority it has - it's the authoritative source. Because master is a shorter word and easier to say, it won out.

Yeah that's what I meant by "...that copy is in a very weak sense directing (by example) the machinery in the replication process." It has symbolic authority of the decision makers who created it. It has no inherent authority of its own... it's just data, which is why I say it's inappropriate. But we use lots of inappropriate labels for convenience sake, and I'm not going to argue that social convention lol.