Master vs main (again)

I dislike master because main is shorter and faster to type

doesn't matter: ma TAB
- Some newbie at project: git checkout -b main_problem_task123
The best reason is always in the comments

I use master and apprentice. Always two there are, no more, no less.

So that's why Sith were considered evil
Only a sith deals in absolutes, I will do what I must.
Why isn’t there a journeyman Sith though?
I think will actually start using this “master” and “apprentice” now. Love it lol

Treat branches like Chinese dynasties. The mainline branch is the one having the mandate of heaven.

And they tend to fracture and rejoin seemingly at random, but with certain regularity

I’m fairly confident the random branches I spin off to try out a dumb idea are not equal to main.

I know mine are worth less than others.

I'm... I'm not sure that's the flex you think it is.

I think it's mostly a shitpost lol
- White shitpost?
- You're not wrong.

Someone suggested queen and worker. Luffy and then branches named after crew members also seemed nice. Another suggested dom and sub. Leader and cultist were other suggestions. For any StarCraft mod it should be Kerrigan and Raynor, or OverMind and Zerg, or for the later stages Amon and Protoss.

I love all those suggestions. Keeps things interesting and conveys the same thing.

I do whatever work wants me to do. you want "main" or "icecream" as the production branch, whatever.

I'll keep using master for all my personal repos because it's a master record of the source from which all other branches are derived. it's like the difference between "read" and "read". spelled the same but completely different definitions.

Imagine the mess in a thousand people project where all branches are "equal"

I work on a few repos that have branches that are rarely merged to the default one and it's quite annoying

I think 'master' is fine for the master branch. It's a master copy of the codebase.

I think 'main' is fine for the main branch. It's the main branch of the repo.

I use 'main' at work cos that's what my git client defaults to. I use 'master' at home because that's what my git client defaults to. 🤷‍♂️

Why not call it trunk and make it all tree themed

Cause git doesn't work that way. There is no trunk. It's all branches.
- What is a trunk if not a large branch
- But that's not actually true in general; there is a default branch concept in forges, and an integration and/or release branch in most recommended workflows. That's the trunk.
To be completely fair, I've worked in places that treat Git like it's an over-engineered SVN and use the SVN workflow, fighting against the current the entire way. "trunk" would be just fine with that crowd.

I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was

Main do be a bit less left hand heavy. Which depending on the user may find as a disadvantage.

... Has anyone adopted a 'Master' - 'Padawan' paradigm?

git config --global init.defaultBranch main

The next release branch is the one i am currently working on. No need to merge it back to the other one

i just call my main git branches trunk