Re: Bug: "git checkout -b" should be allowed in empty repo

From: demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 6, 2012, 18:39 UTC
Message-ID: <CANgJU+Xz1adaungdOnosYwvYOXYf1F=PTub2nJYn=-1BiRAFeg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH5451ndjozo8-Cx3+Vc84TCjKJvCnSuOUsQS5cnqXsdc=8fMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 February 2012 05:42, Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On 6 February 2012 15:30, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
>> And perhaps in that case we should be discouraging them from calling it
>> something besides master (because while master is mostly convention,
>> there are a few magic spots in the code where it is treated specially,
>> and departing from the convention for no good reason should be
>> discouraged).
>
> What exactly are the areas where 'master' is treated specially? I
> agree that people should be discouraged from needlessly abandoning
> convention, however I think users should have the ability to name
> their branches as they see fit.

FWIW, we at $work have used a repo without a master branch at all since the very beginning and never noticed a problem with it.

Although we *did* rename the original master to "trunk".

We did this because we felt that in a scenario where there is a designated central "master repo" that the use of "master branch" would get really confusing, so we have a master repo, whos main branch is "trunk".

Yves

-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"