It’s … just a name. main is short, the first two letters are the same as master so ma<Tab> still works, and is the pragmatical choice. You could argue for 16 years that something else might be better, but I wish everyone would just do the same thing, no matter what that is, so I don’t need to figure out what the primary / main / master / consensus / trunk / tip / head / chief / lead / wazzemabob branch is for every project I check out. I’ve already been confused a few times over the years by being on the wrong branch (“why can’t I find this code in a project I never worked on before?! … oh, this isn’t the primary/main/master/… branch”).
Naming it consensus instead of main is bikeshed painting at its most trivial.
This is a very weird take to me, in terms of how it’s explained.
First off, I don’t know what dictionary OP used, “Decisions are reached in a dialogue between equals” is not the definition of consensus in any dictionary I’ve checked.
They all have quite similar definitions like “a general agreement” or “a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people”.
Even if we ignore the formal definition and use the one from the page, it doesn’t really ‘fit’ the use case anyway. From the committing changes (to branches) point of view, not everyone involved is “equal”. I don’t give other people direct commit access to my open source repos. They can propose changes in some fashion (i.e. pull requests or asking for new features/fixes) but that doesn’t mean every suggestion or request is going to reach “consensus”. Sometimes I’m just going to say “no” and they’re not going to be happy about it.
The same logic applies for private repos with staff involved. Not everyone has access to commit in all branches.
As for the actual thing being discussed: it’s just a name. Do what works for you. If you want to call it Slartibartfast go right ahead. We don’t need a strained explanation with nonsensical claims of comparison. Just use what you want, and get on with it.
With one client we’ve taken to using environment-like names for branches. So what you’re referring to as master or main or consensus we just call stable. This also helps with non/less technical stakeholders who will then perhaps read about ‘merge to stable’ ‘deploy to stable’ and not be as confused as if we said ‘merge to main’ ‘deploy to stable’. Obviously that confusion could go either way, depending on how much they read into it.
It’s … just a name.
mainis short, the first two letters are the same asmastersoma<Tab>still works, and is the pragmatical choice. You could argue for 16 years that something else might be better, but I wish everyone would just do the same thing, no matter what that is, so I don’t need to figure out what theprimary/main/master/consensus/trunk/tip/head/chief/lead/wazzemabobbranch is for every project I check out. I’ve already been confused a few times over the years by being on the wrong branch (“why can’t I find this code in a project I never worked on before?! … oh, this isn’t the primary/main/master/… branch”).Naming it
consensusinstead ofmainis bikeshed painting at its most trivial.I too can look up words in a dictionary:
A branch has nothing to do with decisions or dialogue.
This is a very weird take to me, in terms of how it’s explained.
First off, I don’t know what dictionary OP used, “Decisions are reached in a dialogue between equals” is not the definition of consensus in any dictionary I’ve checked.
They all have quite similar definitions like “a general agreement” or “a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people”.
Even if we ignore the formal definition and use the one from the page, it doesn’t really ‘fit’ the use case anyway. From the committing changes (to branches) point of view, not everyone involved is “equal”. I don’t give other people direct commit access to my open source repos. They can propose changes in some fashion (i.e. pull requests or asking for new features/fixes) but that doesn’t mean every suggestion or request is going to reach “consensus”. Sometimes I’m just going to say “no” and they’re not going to be happy about it.
The same logic applies for private repos with staff involved. Not everyone has access to commit in all branches.
As for the actual thing being discussed: it’s just a name. Do what works for you. If you want to call it
Slartibartfastgo right ahead. We don’t need a strained explanation with nonsensical claims of comparison. Just use what you want, and get on with it.With one client we’ve taken to using environment-like names for branches. So what you’re referring to as
masterormainorconsensuswe just callstable. This also helps with non/less technical stakeholders who will then perhaps read about ‘merge to stable’ ‘deploy to stable’ and not be as confused as if we said ‘merge to main’ ‘deploy to stable’. Obviously that confusion could go either way, depending on how much they read into it.Thanks for the comments, all…really wanted to see what the reaction would be and it seems someone nailed it on the head