Heya Andrew... turns out I read this list too, so... thanks for referencin' all my work! Some thoughts inline: On 15 Jun 2020 at 13:52:50, Andrew Ardill arranged the bits on my disk to say: [SNIP] > Even if git borrowed 'master' from BitKeeper AND BitKeeper used it in > a "Master and Slave" fashion, that doesn't mean that the person > introducing it to git was using it in a "Master and Slave" fashion, https://marc.info/?l=git&m=111968031816936&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=git&m=111634468526506&w=2 Oops. > It's just as likely that the 'master' usage was common in the industry Do you have any specific references to, specifically, common usage in the industry, at that time? > My conclusion? > > Of all the usages of master in BitKeeper, the overwhelming majority of > them are of the "Master Copy" variant, consistent with how I and many > other people I have seen comment understand gits usage of the term > master. See above. > To reiterate my point at the top - I believe this information is > irrelevant when deciding what git should do now, and my preference > would be to have no default at all. Cool. Sounds like we mostly agree... -p -- J. Paul Reed https://jpaulreed.com PGP: 0xDF8708F8
