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:
Dan Book
Date:
July 12, 2019 21:37
Subject:
Re: Transition from RT to GitHub -- should "blead" be renamed to"master"?
Message ID:
CABMkAVVuuagNNPU4is3vBYY2MZOgCrHfQEXMYKBRhC5wKve=xQ@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:06 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?)
>
>
While I respect the intent of cleanliness and consistency, in this case I
think there is realistically no benefit and lots of difficult parts. As one
example the perl-build and perlbrew tools mentioned in the other thread
rely on the branch being called blead to start with. As long as you set the
default branch of a repository to the one you want people to work against,
and you don't have a random 'master' branch that isn't default, there are
no practical issues for contributors, in my experience.

-Dan

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