Re: Avoiding 'master' nomenclature
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 29, 2020, 20:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqa6zi9hrt.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAHk-=wisOOrfEvab9S417MnPSY8dVkbDOKa6ccdi1Bg3X1PMaw@mail.gmail.com>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Even if you don't want to treat "master" specially, there's two actual > reasons to do so: > > (a) the technical one: it's the old default one in a lot of existing > repositories, so if there is no defaultBranchName, it effectively > _was_ that > > (b) the non-technical one: if the aim is to get rid of "master" > terminology, THAT IS EXACTLY what the code did before it was removed. > > So really. Both from a technical _and_ a terminology angle, that > commit was just wrong.
Your "if the aim is" is curious---the change is not particularly aimed for that. As far as I understand it, it was also to retire the "one single thing is special among others" mentality (which by the way I find somewhat offending).
The original did two things wrong, i.e. treated one thing specially, and designated 'master' which has been declared a dirty word as that special thing. Killing these two wrongs with one stone does not feel so stupid.