Talk:Git

message: Here's a list of some things that we can use to further expand the article:
* example screenshot of some git log output of the Linux kernel, showing an example of git commit hash and commit messages
* example screenshot of git diff output to show how Git is tracking changes
* example visual screenshot/diagram of a Git tree that visually shows git branches as lines and commits as dots, how branches are created when the line splits, and how branches are merged when the lines converge
* PGP/GnuPG signing commits and tags, and purpose of signing
* history of commit "sign-off" feature and relevance to SCO lawsuit
* Developer Certificate of Origin and "Signed-off by:" used for Linux kernel
* workflow that patches sent through email, and how that compares to the use of Git hosting services
* why Git ignores are used, and commonly used .gitignore file
* emphasis on push, fetch, pull, merge, etc. commands with patches and pull requests
* how "master" branch has references to slavery
* a sentence explaining use of "master" commonly used to explain concepts in computing (e.g. master and slave devices)
* relevance of "master" branch to racism awareness and Black Lives Matter movement in countries such as the US and examples of some notable projects that have renamed "master" branch to "main" branch
These last three are ememplars of the ignorance that pervades among people with regard to this hypersensitivty to and policing of language.
"Master" here does not reference slavery.  It has the same semantics as having a master (that is primary) recording, the one from which all others are copies.  This has nothing to do with racism except to a bunch of virtue signaling ignoramuses so intent of "cleansing" our language of content they find, again out of deep ignorance, objectionable, and without any knowledge of the actual meaning or etymology of the words.  I personally change "main" back to "master" in my new repositories exactly because the former does _not_ have the same semantics as the latter.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.108.114 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear 50.74.108.114: Over-sensitive much? Passive aggressive much? You come off as icky jerk. Besides, "main" is shorter. Live an let live. The world needs more compassion; less of what you're yelling. Stevebroshar (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

text: What you're ranting on about is something largely irrelevant to Git itself. Although it's a widespread change in the free software community, GitHub, then after it GitLab, are the services who mainly adopted the practice (after a suggestion from the Software Freedom Conservancy amid the 2020 unrest), while Git's default, if not otherwise specified, remains master. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I've created a todo list that is shown as a banner on this talk page. Somerandomuser (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further expanding the article 

message: (Nearly) EVERYONE refers to 'git' as a distributed VCS when it is actually a decentralized system. There is a colloquial and a very technical difference. I get it, the "distributed" ball has been rolling for years and has so much momentum ... Still, this page should be corrected to be technically accurate with a nod to the misnomer "distributed." IMHO. Rusty.pole (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rusty.pole I didn't know the difference between distributed and decentralized but from what I read, you seem to be correct. Do you think the header should be changed ?  Vincent-vst (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

text: @Rusty.pole : Is there a Wikipedia article that discusses the technical distinction between those terms? --DavidCary (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributed vs. decentralized