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.duns...@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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature