Next week, we'll begin the process of renaming the master branch on all our repositories to something else.
In case this movement in tech is a bit...
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
At a previous company I worked at we had
masteranddevelopwhere the latter was used for the latest work andmasterwas the stable branch. Going forward in my own work I think I will usestableinstead ofmasterand keepdevelopas is. Seems pretty easy to me :)We never understood why it was called 'master' - or really why it's called "production" either. No solution yet... but - 'devel' doesn't seem that fun. We always prefer 'random' over 'rand.'
Here's some of the history behind Git's use of
master, from the guy who started using it.But, yeah, I feel like
edgeis more fun, personally.It has to be
trunk! If you use the term 'branches' and 'working tree', a lot of order is restored to the universe (in my opinion) by calling the trunk of the tree what it is:the trunk!
I've been so surprised about this discussion. I can't imagine calling it anything else.
Except . . .
The tide in the community seems to be inevitably toward
main. . . and that's what my company has now adopted internally. Oh well.Actually, I think you make a pretty good point. The only trouble in our system with calling it "trunk" is that we effectively have three trees: stable, fresh, and (now) devel. While changes generally flow
devel->fresh->stable, that's not always the case. If there's a critical bug in stable, and we're working on a separate release onfresh, we would need to branch off stable, change things, run it through the CI/CD, and then land that branch directly to stable.It's somewhat along the same lines as when one of our team members said it should really be "main" to indicate "the primary branch" — even he agreed that didn't make sense once I explained that we had three primaries.
Three trunks . . . It's a hydra! :D
"some comments removed" :)
Yup, all the unproductive debate about whether master should even be changed, which I explicitly stated at the end of the article has no place in this discussion. ;)
Sometimes you have to take a hard line on intolerance.
Censoring opposing opinions is just another form of intolerance.
I have no opinion about what your choose to call your github branches. That's totally up to you,
Welcome to the paradox of intolerance: to support tolerance, one must be intolerant of intolerance. That means, no, I don't have to give voice to people baselessly criticizing the very real experiences of people wholly dissimilar to themselves.
Besides, there are other places to have this conversation about whether
mastershould be renamed...although it's honestly been exhausted across multiple threads and articles. The only dissenters are people with absolutely no stake in the matter save a minor inconvenience in renaming a couple of things. Many of the people who have reason to care have already spoken.From the DEV Code of Conduct:
As the "pro-master" arguments are almost always in violation of those first two cited principles, I am merely exercising the third.
As noted before. I don't care what you call your branches. It's none of my business.
What I do care about is censorship. When you choose to make a political statement in a public forum, you can not delete responses you don't like. You opened the gate, now deal with the responses.
Literally not how it works, mate. Free speech doesn't mean hate speech is tolerable, especially not here. That is the literal exact reason "Hide Comment" was given to all authors.
If "I should be able to say whatever to whomever" is your philosophy, you're on the wrong platform.
Phew