• aquovie@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      trunk was the common name before git anyway. Why the move away? I’ve heard it’s because git is more of a weird graph than the trunk+branch model of CVS. But if that’s the reasoning, master is still a stupid name because it implies the same primacy as trunk. Why not just default or start or something?

        • bob_lemon@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 days ago

          That would make sense for forks, not branches. Although to be fair, the word branch also doesn’t make sense for branches (since those don’t exactly merge back into the trunk).

          • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I think it can apply to the most general workflow with branches as well, where branches are used to develop features and then later merge them.

            After all, any new branch is basically a “remaster” until merged back in, which is when the original master becomes the remaster.

            Sure, the analogy isn’t perfect because in music the original master isn’t supposed to change – but the entire purpose of a version control system is to change the “master record”, i.e. what’s deployed to production.