How we refer to the default branch of kubernetes/kubernetes

[Aaron Crickenberger]

Hi all,

I recognize that renaming the default branch for git repositories is going to be a while, and will require some tooling and infrastructure changes.  But I'm wondering if, as we look forward in the kubernetes release cycle, we can get a head start on our terminology.  Much the same way that SIG Architecture moved toward humans referring to the "control plane" well in advance of specific fields and variables getting renamed.

Terms I've heard suggested

- the main branch (as a likely candidate for the new default name)

- the development branch (since that's where active release development happens)

Basically I'm wondering:

- how much of our existing release process documentation can be updated in advance of a branch rename?

- what terminology do we think we should use?

- aaron

[Noah Kantrowitz]

I generally use "the development branch" when in a mixed environment
these days, so as to avoid a potentially confusing reference to a
specific branch name. But It depends a lot on context. I also will
sometimes let my roots show and say "trunk branch" but probably best to
not encourage that

--Noah

Aaron Crickenberger wrote on 8/11/20 1:58 PM:
> I generally use "the development branch" when in a mixed environment
> these days, so as to avoid a potentially confusing reference to a
> specific branch name. But It depends a lot on context. I also will
> sometimes let my roots show and say "trunk branch" but probably best to
> not encourage that :)
>
> --Noah

[Jaice Singer DuMars]

In the meeting, we discussed this and arrived at "main" as a placeholder for now. I don't consider that a final answer necessarily, but it's a start.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes WG Naming" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-wg-na...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/80aaac29-a3a7-d7a2-66c3-4dec8904f2cb%40coderanger.net.

[Celeste Horgan]

Per GitHub's Branch Naming Roadmap:

"main is the most popular replacement for master that we’re seeing across GitHub. We like it because it’s short, it keeps your muscle memory intact, and it translates well across most languages.... One month after the new settings are available in GitHub.com, we will set the default to main for any user or organization that hasn't chosen a default branch for new repositories."

As such, I don't think this particular wording decision requires any further discussion.

I'd recommend the following:

1. Use either master or main until GitHub rolls out its full updates later this year.
2. Once GitHub rolls out its full updates, use main.
   

If that sounds good, leave a +1 and... maybe we'll make this into our first official recommendation?!

Celeste

[Taylor Dolezal]

+1 - this sounds like a great course of action to me! 

Sincerely,

Taylor Dolezal

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-wg-naming+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/b83ee4e9-6167-48d2-8374-76742fe50305n%40googlegroups.com.

[Karthikeyan Govindaraj]

+1 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/b83ee4e9-6167-48d2-8374-76742fe50305n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kubernetes WG Naming" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kubernetes-wg-na...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/kdrt1qn8.07de006a-35c8-4e27-9db2-9a18a149c23b%40we.are.superhuman.com.

[Noah Kantrowitz]

I think we might be talking past each other. The question isn't what the
branch should be named (eventually). It's how we we talk about the
branch
currently-named-"master"-and-in-some-places-and-later-named-"main". We
could certainly just start calling it "main" everywhere regardless of
the underlying migration but I'm concerned that may lead to confusion
during the swapover. We could also just be precise and use the actual
branch name for the specific project (or main/master for collective
situations). Or we could have some kind of term that encompasses both :)
If the best option is just to use the new naming and trust people to
know when the mentally translate to "master" that's cool, I think it
would work okay, just worries me.

--Noah

Celeste Horgan wrote on 8/12/20 12:54 PM:
> Per GitHub's Branch Naming Roadmap <http://Branch%20Naming%20Roadmap>:

>
> "main is the most popular replacement for master that we’re seeing
> across GitHub. We like it because it’s short, it keeps your muscle

> memory intact, and it translates well across most languages.... *One

> month after the new settings are available in GitHub.com, we will set

> the default to main* for any user or organization that hasn't chosen a

> default branch for new repositories."
>
> As such, I don't think this particular wording decision requires any
> further discussion.
>
> I'd recommend the following:
>

> 1. Use either *master* or *main* until GitHub rolls out its full
> updates later this year.
> 2. Once GitHub rolls out its full updates, use *main*.

> <mailto:kubernetes-wg-na...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/b83ee4e9-6167-48d2-8374-76742fe50305n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/b83ee4e9-6167-48d2-8374-76742fe50305n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Stephen Augustus]

Agreed. For the sake of being precise, in places where I'm referring to the name of the branch, I use `master` (code fenced).

To Aaron's questions...

> - what terminology do we think we should use?

In instances where I'm referring to the branch, I may use "our primary|default|development branch".

> - how much of our existing release process documentation can be updated in advance of a branch rename?

I can task the Release Team with combing through documentation and starting to dereference `master`, where appropriate, if the above choices seem suitable to folx.

-- Stephen

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/51428a4d-232a-beba-c2e3-9fe05342093c%40coderanger.net.

[Nick Young]

The reason I'm a fan of `main` as the new name is that it lets you say "the main branch" and have it make sense whether or not that's literally the name of the branch of not.

To me, it seems that moving to calling it the main branch is both a reasonable proxy for now, and will be technically correct later as well.

I agree that for disambiguation when you refer to the actual name, code fencing `master` is good. It's like handling the word with tongs!

Nick

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/CAOqU-DSBbs7scCg2hdDMWx8R9LLLFAZVnzZxDd0abcFigGZKJg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Aaron Crickenberger]

+1 Nick

Instead of "our primary|default|development branch" I think rallying around a single/common phrase like "the main branch" would be helpful.

>I can task the Release Team with combing through documentation and starting to dereference `master`, where appropriate, if the above choices seem suitable to folx.

Sounds good to me and I'm happy to help out where able.  Would it make sense to migrate testgrid to sig-release-main-blocking? The other dashboards like sig-release-1.19-blocking don't strictly speaking have the branch name embedded within them.

- aaron

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/CA%2Bdr%3DDifzw%3DBJ4EdMzu%3D7%2BSh%3DPxHZmNNyY%2BKxZpLDRLsLDrCHw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Celeste Horgan]

Hi all,

It sounds like consensus is on main. Are there any further objections, or are we good to formalize this as a recommendation?

Celeste

[Zach Corleissen]

Let's make it official! 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/5d154d9b-652b-4946-a55d-0655589edd44n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Zach Corleissen

Lead Technical Writer, Linux Foundation

[Jaice Singer DuMars]

+1 and suggest this approve by lazy consensus if no objections by EOD Sunday the 23rd.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/CABAQYeCK0x3a1hNjVJ5d_xsh3AtvR%2BnvmWpcfWXrXC5xchdbkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Celeste Horgan]

Looks like we have lazy consensus on this one! Hurray. :)

Drafting a separate thread on how we can record our decisions for the world to see, stay tuned!

For now I'd love if someone could add this to the agenda for next meeting so we remember to give a status update.

Cheers,

Celeste

[Karthikeyan Govindaraj]

Got it covered, added it under the "September 14, 2020" meeting agenda.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kubernetes-wg-naming/2ddcad2b-05aa-4e03-80b7-f6bddbc609een%40googlegroups.com.