On 6 February 2012 05:42, Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6 February 2012 15:30, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> And perhaps in that case we should be discouraging them from calling it >> something besides master (because while master is mostly convention, >> there are a few magic spots in the code where it is treated specially, >> and departing from the convention for no good reason should be >> discouraged). > > What exactly are the areas where 'master' is treated specially? I > agree that people should be discouraged from needlessly abandoning > convention, however I think users should have the ability to name > their branches as they see fit. FWIW, we at $work have used a repo without a master branch at all since the very beginning and never noticed a problem with it. Although we *did* rename the original master to "trunk". We did this because we felt that in a scenario where there is a designated central "master repo" that the use of "master branch" would get really confusing, so we have a master repo, whos main branch is "trunk". Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/" -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html