I will continue to maintain that main is not a useful name. Neither is master, and has other problematic implications. So, I'm certainly not advocating using master.
The thing is, we name all of our other branches according to their purpose, so why not the default branch? In my opinion, the default branch should also be named according to how it's used.
For projects where the default branch represents the stable code, it should be named something like stable, or prod. I usually use prod for continuously deployed web apps, and stable for versioned projects.
For projects where the default branch represents the main development branch, it should be named develop or development.
Thanks for your input, Dan. β
Yes, it's true.
Different teams or organization name their branches differently. π―π
Develop branch is common especially for features underdevelopment etc.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I will continue to maintain that
main
is not a useful name. Neither ismaster
, and has other problematic implications. So, I'm certainly not advocating usingmaster
.The thing is, we name all of our other branches according to their purpose, so why not the default branch? In my opinion, the default branch should also be named according to how it's used.
For projects where the default branch represents the stable code, it should be named something like
stable
, orprod
. I usually useprod
for continuously deployed web apps, andstable
for versioned projects.For projects where the default branch represents the main development branch, it should be named
develop
ordevelopment
.Thanks for your input, Dan. β
Yes, it's true.
Different teams or organization name their branches differently. π―π
Develop branch is common especially for features underdevelopment etc.