It just bothers me that "master" branch is a misnomer. It's a hold over from CVS/SVN where there was actually a central authoritative branch. I'm not necessary saying the other reasons don't have merit, as well.
I do whatever work wants me to do. you want "main" or "icecream" as the production branch, whatever.
I'll keep using master for all my personal repos because it's a master record of the source from which all other branches are derived. it's like the difference between "read" and "read". spelled the same but completely different definitions.
I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was
Someone suggested queen and worker. Luffy and then branches named after crew members also seemed nice. Another suggested dom and sub. Leader and cultist were other suggestions. For any StarCraft mod it should be Kerrigan and Raynor, or OverMind and Zerg, or for the later stages Amon and Protoss.
I love all those suggestions. Keeps things interesting and conveys the same thing.
But that's not actually true in general; there is a default branch concept in forges, and an integration and/or release branch in most recommended workflows. That's the trunk.
To be completely fair, I've worked in places that treat Git like it's an over-engineered SVN and use the SVN workflow, fighting against the current the entire way. "trunk" would be just fine with that crowd.
Real talk, "master" refers to a "master copy" from which new branches are can be made from. If one of these branches becomes "better" than the current master copy, it gets "merged" into the master copy effectively replacing it as the new master copy (sometimes totally, sometimes partially).
Edit: Pretty sure basically everyone here knows this, but I figured it could not hurt to put the explanation here.
I prefer master exactly for that reason
::sigh:: This is the correct answer for a buttplug.io based workflow.
What are you doing step-branch?
doesn't matter:
maTABThe best reason is always in the comments
I use master and apprentice. Always two there are, no more, no less.
So that's why Sith were considered evil
Only a sith deals in absolutes, I will do what I must.
I think will actually start using this “master” and “apprentice” now. Love it lol
Why isn’t there a journeyman Sith though?
Treat branches like Chinese dynasties. The mainline branch is the one having the mandate of heaven.
And they tend to fracture and rejoin seemingly at random, but with certain regularity
I’m fairly confident the random branches I spin off to try out a dumb idea are not equal to main.
I know mine are worth less than others.
I'm... I'm not sure that's the flex you think it is.
I think it's mostly a shitpost lol
You're not wrong.
White shitpost?
It just bothers me that "master" branch is a misnomer. It's a hold over from CVS/SVN where there was actually a central authoritative branch. I'm not necessary saying the other reasons don't have merit, as well.
trunk?
Master's trunk ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Yaaaaaaaaa!
I always rename it to "dev." Hard to have any problems or confusion with that
dev is confusing it implies it's not the stable branch, no? Or was the master branch never stable for you?
The only time I merge unstable code is behind a feature flag
Imagine the mess in a thousand people project where all branches are "equal"
I work on a few repos that have branches that are rarely merged to the default one and it's quite annoying
I do whatever work wants me to do. you want "main" or "icecream" as the production branch, whatever.
I'll keep using master for all my personal repos because it's a master record of the source from which all other branches are derived. it's like the difference between "read" and "read". spelled the same but completely different definitions.
I think 'master' is fine for the master branch. It's a master copy of the codebase.
I think 'main' is fine for the main branch. It's the main branch of the repo.
I use 'main' at work cos that's what my git client defaults to. I use 'master' at home because that's what my git client defaults to. 🤷♂️
I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was
Main do be a bit less left hand heavy. Which depending on the user may find as a disadvantage.
Someone suggested queen and worker. Luffy and then branches named after crew members also seemed nice. Another suggested dom and sub. Leader and cultist were other suggestions. For any StarCraft mod it should be Kerrigan and Raynor, or OverMind and Zerg, or for the later stages Amon and Protoss.
I love all those suggestions. Keeps things interesting and conveys the same thing.
... Has anyone adopted a 'Master' - 'Padawan' paradigm?
Why not call it trunk and make it all tree themed
Cause git doesn't work that way. There is no trunk. It's all branches.
What is a trunk if not a large branch
Oh, that's valid, and forks could be called "asexual propagation"
Cherry picking from one trunk to another could be called grafting.
There is already pruning.
If there is no AI used, it could be called GMO.
I'm not sure if there is a tree analogy for merging trunks together, however.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_(botany)
But that's not actually true in general; there is a default branch concept in forges, and an integration and/or release branch in most recommended workflows. That's the trunk.
To be completely fair, I've worked in places that treat Git like it's an over-engineered SVN and use the SVN workflow, fighting against the current the entire way. "trunk" would be just fine with that crowd.
git config --global init.defaultBranch mainThe next release branch is the one i am currently working on. No need to merge it back to the other one
i just call my main git branches trunk
Real talk, "master" refers to a "master copy" from which new branches
arecan be made from. If one of these branches becomes "better" than the current master copy, it gets "merged" into the master copy effectively replacing it as the new master copy (sometimes totally, sometimes partially).Edit: Pretty sure basically everyone here knows this, but I figured it could not hurt to put the explanation here.