all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 88 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [+] 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 41 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I use master and apprentice. Always two there are, no more, no less.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Treat branches like Chinese dynasties. The mainline branch is the one having the mandate of heaven.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I’m fairly confident the random branches I spin off to try out a dumb idea are not equal to main.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I'm... I'm not sure that's the flex you think it is.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I think it's mostly a shitpost lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 8 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    It just bothers me that "master" branch is a misnomer. It's a hold over from CVS/SVN where there was actually a central authoritative branch. I'm not necessary saying the other reasons don't have merit, as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I always rename it to "dev." Hard to have any problems or confusion with that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    dev is confusing it implies it's not the stable branch, no? Or was the master branch never stable for you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Imagine the mess in a thousand people project where all branches are "equal"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago

    I do whatever work wants me to do. you want "main" or "icecream" as the production branch, whatever.

    I'll keep using master for all my personal repos because it's a master record of the source from which all other branches are derived. it's like the difference between "read" and "read". spelled the same but completely different definitions.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago*

    I think 'master' is fine for the master branch. It's a master copy of the codebase.

    I think 'main' is fine for the main branch. It's the main branch of the repo.

    I use 'main' at work cos that's what my git client defaults to. I use 'master' at home because that's what my git client defaults to. 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    Someone suggested queen and worker. Luffy and then branches named after crew members also seemed nice. Another suggested dom and sub. Leader and cultist were other suggestions. For any StarCraft mod it should be Kerrigan and Raynor, or OverMind and Zerg, or for the later stages Amon and Protoss.

    I love all those suggestions. Keeps things interesting and conveys the same thing.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    ... Has anyone adopted a 'Master' - 'Padawan' paradigm?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Why not call it trunk and make it all tree themed

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Cause git doesn't work that way. There is no trunk. It's all branches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    What is a trunk if not a large branch

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 10 months ago*

    Oh, that's valid, and forks could be called "asexual propagation"

    Cherry picking from one trunk to another could be called grafting.

    There is already pruning.

    If there is no AI used, it could be called GMO.

    I'm not sure if there is a tree analogy for merging trunks together, however.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    git config --global init.defaultBranch main

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    The next release branch is the one i am currently working on. No need to merge it back to the other one

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    i just call my main git branches trunk

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Real talk, "master" refers to a "master copy" from which new branches are can be made from. If one of these branches becomes "better" than the current master copy, it gets "merged" into the master copy effectively replacing it as the new master copy (sometimes totally, sometimes partially).

    Edit: Pretty sure basically everyone here knows this, but I figured it could not hurt to put the explanation here.

  • source