| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Jargon and acronyms on this mailing list |
| Date: | 2024-09-09 17:19:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaH=dg7NBmt1kcPzax+M9Tq0VqFr6Qc6TuWBnpXk7YJJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 1:03 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> I guess I could try to write code to migrate everything, but it would be
> somewhat fragile. And what would we do if we ever decided to migrate
> "master" to another name like "main"? I do at least have code ready for
> that eventuality, but it would (currently) still keep the visible name
> of HEAD.
Personally, I think using HEAD to mean master is really confusing. In
git, master is a branch name, and HEAD is the tip of some branch, or
the random commit you've checked out that isn't even a branch. I know
that's not how it worked in CVS, but CVS was a very long time ago.
If we rename master to main or devel or something, we'll have to
adjust the way we speak again, but that's not a reason to keep using
the wrong terminology for the way things are now.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-09 17:25:02 | Re: access numeric data in module |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-09-09 17:02:51 | Re: Jargon and acronyms on this mailing list |