Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:53:29 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: language cleanups in code and docs
Message-ID: <20200617005329.GA14742@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1406831.1592351744@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
> >> changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
> >> somewhat separate discussion to me, as it affects development
> >> practices to some degree.
> 
> > I'm OK with this, but I would need plenty of notice to get the buildfarm
> > adjusted.
> 
> "master" is the default branch name established by git, is it not?  Not
> something we picked.  I don't feel like we need to be out front of the
> rest of the world in changing that.  It'd be a cheaper change than some of
> the other proposals in this thread, no doubt, but it would still create
> confusion for new hackers who are used to the standard git convention.

Git itself is discussing this:
https://public-inbox.org/git/41438A0F-50E4-4E58-A3A7-3DAAECB5576B@jramsay.com.au/T/#t
and it seems that "main" is the winning choice.

(Personally) I would leave master to have root, would leave root to have
default, would leave default to have primary, would leave primary to
have base, would leave base to have main, would leave main to have
mainline.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services