On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:09:50PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > Seriously? Nobody has an opinion here? Or will this just be another > case of "ZOMG WHY DID YOU DO THIS STUPID THING" as soon as it rolls out... > I'm not around enough right now to be able to test anything :-(. I also don't really understand the choices you're presenting since they're based on git conventions that I don't know. master is just a convention in git? HEAD is treated specially but doesn't exist normally in a repository? I think the only way to do this is to implement one thing and then be willing to either change that (or let someone else contribute work to change it) once people use it and tell you "ZOMG WHY [...]". That said, I don't think I'd use either HEAD or master as the branch name since they both have some sort of association with how git itself works unless the name actually matches 100% with the concept that you're trying to express here. When you make a UI choice where a feature has the same name as another feature but they are onlt 80% compatible you cause problems for the people that try to do something in that 20% space. When they switch from one feature to the other they run into incompatibilities, googling will turn up the wrong feature, they will ask on IRC and get answers that concern the wrong feature, etc. It's better to have a distinct name for something that is different. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpW7fnmzHHNi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
