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.

LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 303d (6 replies)

trunk?

Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club · 5 pts · 302d (1 reply)

Master's trunk ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

onlinepersona@programming.dev · 2 pts · 302d

Yaaaaaaaaa!

tdawg@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 302d (3 replies)

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

onlinepersona@programming.dev · 3 pts · 302d (2 replies)

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

tdawg@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 301d

The only time I merge unstable code is behind a feature flag

Sibbo@sopuli.xyz · 17 pts · 303d (1 reply)

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

eager_eagle@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 303d

I work on a few repos that have branches that are rarely merged to the default one and it's quite annoying

GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 303d

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.

hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 302d

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. 🤷‍♂️

fruitcantfly@programming.dev · 10 pts · 302d (1 reply)

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

Gonzako@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 302d

Main do be a bit less left hand heavy. Which depending on the user may find as a disadvantage.

onlinepersona@programming.dev · 8 pts · 302d

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.

sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 302d

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

RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com · 5 pts · 302d (6 replies)

Why not call it trunk and make it all tree themed

Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one · 3 pts · 302d (4 replies)

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

RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com · 10 pts · 302d (2 replies)

What is a trunk if not a large branch

Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one · 5 pts · 302d

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.

DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 1 pts · 301d

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_(botany)

BatmanAoD@programming.dev · 4 pts · 301d

But that's not actually true in general; there is a default branch concept in forges, and an integration and/or release branch in most recommended workflows. That's the trunk.

dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 302d

To be completely fair, I've worked in places that treat Git like it's an over-engineered SVN and use the SVN workflow, fighting against the current the entire way. "trunk" would be just fine with that crowd.

gigachad@piefed.social · 5 pts · 303d

git config --global init.defaultBranch main

Little8Lost@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 303d

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

cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 303d

i just call my main git branches trunk

SecondSet@programming.dev · 2 pts · 275d

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.