+1 This conversation kind of spilled into the other thread about merging, so I replied there as well about main vs master and rebasing. Sorry about the confusion.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 2:05 PM Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > > I'm +1 in favour of renaming to 'main'. > > > > > On 9 Sep 2020, at 18:26, Alessio 'Blaster' Biancalana > > <dottorblas...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I'm not against nor in favor :-D > > Words matter but in my opinion git's master was never _that_ master. > > Anyway, if it bothers someone... let's do this! > > > > Concerning open PRs, I don't know, I think original authors can easily > > rebase. Also, the next release will cut some stuff open I think, so maybe > > we'll find a feasible time slot to do so. > > > > Alessio > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:40 PM Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Howdy Folks! > >> > >> Words matter. I've just started a thread on merging all of the > >> FoundationDB work into mainline development and thought this would be > >> a good time to bring up a separate discussion on renaming our default > >> branch. > >> > >> Personally, I've got a few projects where I used `main` for the > >> mainline development branch. I find it to be a fairly natural shift > >> because I tab-complete everything on the command line. I'd be open to > >> other suggestions but I'm also hoping this doesn't devolve into a > >> bikeshed on what we end up picking. > >> > >> For mechanics, what I'm thinking is that when we finish up the last > >> rebase of the FoundationDB work that instead of actually pushing the > >> merge/rebase button we just rename the branch and then change the > >> default branch on GitHub and close the PR. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Paul > >> >
