On 14/06/2020 19:23, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote: > Ok, can you show me a single instance where "master" was confusing or > not descriptive enough? Currently Git, and Git for Windows, both have an equal but different "master" branch with the same project root. Hopefully we won't have the same issue when the new default emerges [1]. Moving away for a centralised name in a distributed versioning system will offer the benefits of making the distinction between different forks of the same project. At the same time the concept of a "master copy" is itself an oxymoron. Computer storage provides perfect reproduction at the bits and byte level, with strong verification through the hash values. My copy of hash X is identical to any other, and checkable via fsck. So we ought to be avoiding confusing terminology. Philip [1] Maybe the default can be called be anonymised to "ref0" <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006131645380.56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
