Gollum@feddit.org to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 28 days agoAnother smart movefeddit.orgimagemessage-square38fedilinkarrow-up110arrow-down11
arrow-up19arrow-down1imageAnother smart movefeddit.orgGollum@feddit.org to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 28 days agomessage-square38fedilink
minus-squarechonglibloodsport@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·27 days agoYes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.
minus-squareZink@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·27 days agoIn alignment with this, we should not replace the master branch with the main branch, we should replace it with the gold branch. Every time a PR gets approval and it’s time to merge, I could declare that the code has “gone gold” and I am not doing that right now!
minus-squarevulpivia@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·26 days agoThat’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.
minus-squarechonglibloodsport@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·26 days agoNot according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.
Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.
In alignment with this, we should not replace the master branch with the main branch, we should replace it with the gold branch.
Every time a PR gets approval and it’s time to merge, I could declare that the code has “gone gold” and I am not doing that right now!
That’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.
Not according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.