Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> demerphq <demerphq@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> kind of confusion. Consider how this conversation goes for us: >>> >>> A: "No you need to fetch trunk from the remote, then you need to merge >>> it to your local trunk and then push it to the master trunk". >>> B: "Ok." >> >> Hmph, why isn't the last one "trunk trunk"? [...] >> What I am trying to get at is, after changing the name that is given >> by default to the primary branch in a newly created repositories by >> "git init" to 'main' (which I am OK with, and it seems that the >> major projects and repository hosting services will be doing anyway >> with or without getting themselves in this discussion on this list), >> wouldn't we risk the same "master master" confusion caused by and to >> those newer users who learn 'main' is the word given to the primary >> thing? > > I think Yves's point is that when the tool you are building has a > component named $FOO, it's confusing to also have a branch named $FOO. [...] > In particular when building distributed systems, historically it has > been common to have one of the components being built be named > 'master'. Of course I missed the other point --- hostnames like master.<domain> (e.g., a hypothetical master.kernel.org), refering to the source of truth for something that then gets replicated. I don't think we're likely to see hostnames like main.kernel.org because it's just *so generic* as a word. Jonathan
