Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab default branch name changes to main

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 294 posts

Re: Gitlab default branch name changes to main

#241

Post by akoncius »

mswtk wrote: post #210
oap_bram wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest looking up what the Dutch did in relation to race equality in history and how we were involved in a lot of slave trade, sometimes even to the US. I would say you have a point with saying it's performative, and I don't have anything to counter that. However, perhaps your energy could be spent looking for someone that is actually offended by this to counter your own perspective? Kinda Karl Popper style…

> I would suggest looking up what the Dutch did in relation to race equality in history and how we were involved in a lot of slave trade, sometimes even to the US. I am aware of the history, but that's not enough to give the words themselves emotional charge and significance. The reason this is so for Americans is that the consequences of slavery and racial segregation are keenly felt right now - it's not just an abs…

> I am aware of the history, but that's not enough to give the words themselves emotional charge and significance.

I disagree. Nazis, soviets did a lot of crimes against humanity and in certain countries symbols of those regimes are banned, also speaking positively about it also is banned by claiming it dismisses all those crimes.

It’s not required for that word to be relevant NOW in order to be somewhat negative/avoided.

I think it applies also to master/slave stuff: it attempts to normalize those terms by dismissing history of those words. Also - if we forget shortly that we are used to master branch in git: why word “master” is right choice for it? for me “main” makes sense.

as for DB - original/replica also makes sense.

Re: Gitlab default branch name changes to main

#242

Post by tedunangst »

easytiger wrote: post #208
pdxandi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally prefer primary/secondary anyway.

That doesn't infer the same relationship of dependency, but infers a parallel independent relationship. Not the same thing.

So in a master slave database setup, the slave does all the work while the master supervises?

Re: Gitlab default branch name changes to main

#245

Post by kevincox »

franky47 wrote: post #60

Since we're talking about naming branches, what are your preferred names for branches ? I like 4-letter names: - `main` points to the last release for libraries (along with tags for history) - `prod` points to production in deployable projects (not libraries) - `next` is the development branch for the next version - `deps` is a temporary branch for dependency updates, squashed and merged regularly onto `next`

I generally have v0, v1, v2, ... as the main branch. All changes are made in feature branches (with unimportant naming) and are merged into the appropriate main branch. If we need to support releases then a v1.2 or similar branch is created for each release. Fixes are then added there (as well as the main branch usually). I generally don't create branches for prod or releases, just tags. I also don't have a `next` branch. Whatever is on the version branch is "next" to be released.

Re: Gitlab default branch name changes to main

#246

Post by kevincox »

rvnx wrote: post #86
furgooswft13 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give em a few months.

Shouldn't the real name of this software be "signal" anyway ?

But the default signal is one that "asks" the process to quit. Therefore killing it is fairly descriptive. I can ask someone who doesn't know much about computers what "killing" a program will do and they understand.

signal is not a bad name but `signal 123` is far less obvious than `kill 123`. Of course `signal -USR1 123` is far more obvious than `kill -USR1 123` so there are tradeoffs.

Re: Gitlab default branch name changes to main

#247

Post by kevincox »

detaro wrote: post #76
kbd wrote: post #29

The most unfortunate part of all this churn is that git didn’t provide a way to ask it what a repository’s main branch is named.

You can resolve to which branch /HEAD points? (as far as I understand, local repos don't have a concept of a "main branch", it's only a thing concern remotes and the default branch checked out when cloning them?)

This usually works but not all git remotes have a `/HEAD` ref. I think GitHub always does though.

Re: Gitlab default branch name changes to main

#248

Post by rvnx »

dkarras wrote: post #239
ec109685 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Primary / Replica.

That's not either, slave is not always a "replica" of the master, only in some contexts. And a master does not even need a slave (like in the github case) - so git's master is not even like the master (who had slaves) that people are offended about.

It's more similar to the meaning of audio master, like a reference copy, not that branches are slave of it.
Post reply on HN