Re: Avoiding 'master' nomenclature
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- Date
- Jul 29, 2020, 20:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAHk-=whYOHQ5T-5ozUG6DCfKUyJ14qPoVWqsyHSjQBK450wigA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20200729203856.GA519065@google.com>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> > What would help in figuring out how to do that is, instead of more > reminders of how stupid we are, some more information about what would > be useful for you (both directly in your use of git and indirectly in > the history you would like to have available to you for pulling).
I've sent the patch. It's "tested" only in the sense that the test-suite continues to work, but it's really just a revert together with replacing "master" with using git_default_branch_name() instead.
I would have thought the old behavior was self-explanatory: don't bother saying that you're merging into the default branch, because the default branch name is - wait for it - not interesting.
And yes, I was annoyed by this, and sorry for calling it stupid.
But I was annoyed by this because it took me much too long to notice that my merge messages are now unnecessarily ugly for the last two days, for a _very_ bad reason.
And I'm annoyed because I agree that "master" isn't a great default name, and I treat it as historical. So then making that less-than-great name more visible in the history is actually really sad, in addition to being just ugly.
Linus