On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 03:23:29PM -0300, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote: > Ok, can you show me a single instance where "master" was confusing or not > descriptive enough? I just did. "Master" is not descriptive enough because it implies that a branch with this name carries some special status over all other branches, whereas in reality it doesn't. It can contain junk or be missing entirely. Therefore, having "master" as the default name is misleading. > Mind you, this all comes at the expense of a lot of > friction in the LITERAL WHOLE WORLD. Bugs, stuff breaking, incompatibility > issues, you name it. And let's not forget that people already have all the > tools they need to NOT have a master branch if they don't want to. Well, then nothing really changes then, does it? I don't see why you're so upset over a change that, as you say, will literally impact nothing. > I think > half dozen people can spare a few seconds instead of wasting literally > everybody else's time fixing their respective software. Nobody should have to fix anything. If you already have an existing repository, then literally nothing changes for you. If you create a new repository and you don't like the new default branch name, it will take you no effort to change it to whatever naming convention you prefer. We are giving the community more choice instead of dictating the default. > Also, literally no > one cared until americans went hysterical with the death of that guy in > Minneapolis. False. Efforts to remove the usage of "master" traces back over half a decade, with many projects having done so many years back (Python, for example). (I am deliberately ignoring your inciteful tone, but I would greatly appreciate if you don't use it again. I have all but run out of cringe.) -K
