Did this happen? I've seen "trunk" (per SVN and tree metaphor) and "main" suggested.
Kenn On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 12:16 PM Furkan KAMACI <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I follow the conversation at [email protected]. too. > > I'm +1 for it. > > Kind Regards, > Furkan KAMACI > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:02 PM leerho <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am in favor of this proposal. >> >> It is easy to change the branch name from git, but I am not aware of what >> possible technical difficulties there might be outside of GitHub in making >> this change. The use of "master" is so wide-spread that there may be >> automated or semi-automated systems that may assume, by default, that the >> branch to pull from is "master" and these might require reconfiguration. >> >> Lee. >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:01 AM Jon Malkin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In recent days, and in response to current events outside the tech >>> world, some tech companies have taken to revisiting terminology. It's not >>> something particularly new; there was an IETF draft proposal around the >>> topic from late 2018: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html >>> >>> One lesson I've taken away from this effort is that changing the >>> default/legacy naming schemes can often help improve naming clarity. >>> ArsTechnica noted this in their write-up of the changes to ZFS, noting how >>> 3 different projects moved away from 'master/slave' terminology in 3 >>> different ways, each providing a more accurate description of the >>> underlying relationship for the use case. >>> >>> With that in mind, and recalling that Apache's policies are that we >>> should recommend people grab our official releases, I'm proposing we change >>> our default branch to be named 'prerelease'. This will help make it clear >>> to anyone cloning our repos that they are using code that has not yet been >>> released. >>> >>> Any thoughts? Votes in favor/opposed? >>> >>> jon >>> >>
