On 6/17/20 6:06 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 19:55 -0400, 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.
>
> I have the feeling that all this is going somewhat too far.
First, I +1 the changes Andres proposed overall. In addition to it being
the right thing to do, it brings inline a lot of the terminology we have
been using to describe concepts in PostgreSQL for years (e.g.
primary/replica).
For the name of the git branch, I +1 following the convention of the git
upstream, and make changes based on that. Understandably, it could break
things for a bit, but that will occur for a lot of other projects as
well and everyone will adopt. We have the benefit that we're just
beginning our new development cycle too, so this is a good time to
introduce breaking change ;)
Jonathan
