develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2019

Re: Transition from RT to GitHub -- should "blead" be renamed to"master"?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Leon Timmermans
Date:
July 12, 2019 21:28
Subject:
Re: Transition from RT to GitHub -- should "blead" be renamed to"master"?
Message ID:
CAHhgV8irjGDW8fGXGNism69ZDVfDVBj-oeJY7sF9iZLRDQ6+sg@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:06 PM Deven T. Corzine <deven@ties.org> wrote:
>
> I realize that "blead" has been used for many years and is traditional for Perl development.  At the same time, it's also out of step with typical Git conventions and potentially confusing to new developers who might want to contribute to Perl.
>
> With this move to GitHub, should we consider retiring "blead" as a historical anachronism and rename the default branch to "master" as most Git users expect, or continue with "blead" to honor tradition?
>
> Personally, I do like sticking with tradition -- yet I still tend to lean towards renaming to "master" anyhow, to be more consistent with expectations of those who aren't steeped in years of Perl tradition.  (We want to be inviting and accessible for new people, don't we?)

Almost all git repository have a master branch, but that doesn't mean
it always means the same. Most importantly: does master mean
"production branch" or "development branch". In my head it means the
former, but given that we have a maintenance branch for every stable
release the former doesn't seem like a good fit. You are suggesting
the latter, which I have seen before but always felt wrong to me.

I would argue for keeping it as it is. It's fine for the name to be
different from most git projects, because our whole setup is different
from most git projects


Leon

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About