Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)

Just to stick my oar in here, *if* it’s going to change (and I’m yet to be convinced that it should, but I’m also not opposed in principle to a different name), **PLEASE** can we change it to “trunk”, which is what most of us were using before Git became popular anyway?  That at least makes sense in that a tree trunk has branches.

Kind regards,

Alastair.

-- http://alastairs-place.net

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:34:05PM +0100, Alastair Houghton wrote:

But "master" is not trunk. It just a branch.

Just to give my view on this (I've been following for a couple days).

I started using git in 2016 so everything I've ever done with git has a master branch, every tutorial I've followed uses a master branch, and everyone I've worked with since 2016 is used to using a master branch.

I don't want to join in a political debate, and I don't see why politics has to have any impact on non-political software, there is no technical reason for this change that will eventually impact every developer that uses git, which is most developers.

Git is a version control software, if someone is using git to manage a political project, they're free to use a different branch name, but I don't see why a backend developer working on non-political projects should be impacted by an unnecessary breaking change.

An example scenario I can see happening (especially to inexperienced Devs) if the default branch name is changed:

Dev gets a new laptop and installs git, all their projects work as expected. They create a new project with "git init". "Where's master?!" "Did I do something wrong? Every other time I've done that it created a master branch".