Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That would make perfect sense if all branches had to be made from the default branch.

But they don't.

At `$CLIENT` we use `stable` as the default branch.

Use whatever works for you. Getting upset about a default that you can change is like getting upset about the default wallpaper of your OS.

And before you get all persnickety about that argument working both ways: the developers of git, get to decide the defaults and they did.

If you're so upset, fork it, revert the default branch name and maintain it yourself infinitely. That's definitely worth it just to keep a default branch name you like, right?





> If you're so upset, fork it, revert the default branch name and maintain it yourself infinitely. That's definitely worth it just to keep a default branch name you like, right?

No idea how you got that impression from my comment. It sounds like you're the one that's upset.

I don't care what you name your branches. I do think it's dumb to tell other people what (not) to name their branch though. But definitely not something I feel compelled to rearrange my life over.


Nobody is telling you what not to name your branches.

The people that wrote the software you're using for free, decided to change the default name.

That's it. Nobody has said you can't use whatever name you want.


> Nobody is telling you what not to name your branches.

> Nobody has said you can't use whatever name you want.

This is reductionist. The git people didn't pull this idea out of their butt. It came about because a lot of people were saying that we should not name our branches master.

I have no problem with what the git people did. Easy enough for them to change it, and it puts a dumb issue to bed (for them).

But I think it's fair for anyone to point out that the motivation was dumb, and to explain why it's dumb and how the word "master" is actually not an unreasonable choice in this context.

> Nobody has said you can't use whatever name you want.

Sure, until somebody makes the mistake of not renaming all of their old "master" branches and gets shamed by the word police over it.

Of course you're welcome to disagree.


> how word "master" is actually not an unreasonable choice in this context.

It doesn't even make sense in this context though. The name just got copied from BitKeeper which had master and slave branches.

Git doesn't have that concept.

> Sure, until somebody makes the mistake of not renaming all of their old "master" branches and gets shamed by the word police over it.

How are you going to be shamed? I thought there's nothing wrong with it?


> How are you going to be shamed? I thought there's nothing wrong with it?

If you re-read my comments you will understand that I don't believe there's anything wrong with using the word "master" to name a branch. But other people do, which is why there was an uproar and the default name was ultimately changed to "main".

Not sure how you were able to misinterpret this.


So what's your point?

If you don't think there's anything wrong with it, why would you care if someone else says "hey change this".

Do the same thing you'd do if someone says "hey you should use mongodb it's web scale": tell them you disagree and won't be doing that.

If you don't think there's anything wrong with it, how can you be "shamed" into doing something you disagree with?


I am doing exactly as you say.

I made a comment saying I disagree with the word police and I think it's dumb to cast people as being insensitive for using a longstanding word that makes sense to many people in the context it's used in.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: