You must log in or register to comment.
Locking comments. Had a good run, over half a day, but this was always headed for an emotional train wreck.
If it uses
masterand it’s too much trouble to get people to switch. It staysmasteruntil we can coordinate.If I’m starting a new project I use
main.Why?
It doesn’t take much to do and it avoids any misunderstandings or arguments and we’ve got work to do. I don’t particular care if you guys are “stuck” on
master. If that’s what it is and everyone wants to keep it that way, I don’t have enough will to change it. If it’s under my control, I will change it.You know what else avoids arguments? Not hiring people who start arguments over token bullshit.
I will just say that things in tech change a lot in general. That’s just the nature of it.
If I can do one small thing that makes people feel better, then why wouldn’t I do it?
I don’t necessarily see that as a connection to a measure of competency. It seems you do and you probably have good reasons to believe so and I would say that I haven’t experienced that.
I see mostly people defending master starting arguments. I’ve never seen anyone pushing for main get even half as mad as some of the people coming up with a reason why it’s stupid. Like, holy shit guys, just don’t change it and move on, why be so mad about it?
It’s a retroactive bastardization of the word based on one particular culture’s one particular interpretation of it (master being, apparently, a slaveowner) that ignores both the much earlier meanings of master artisan or master craftsman (as opposed to journeyman and apprentice) and masterpiece (through which an artisan is recognised as a master), and the modern meaning of a master copy (like a master record in disc printing).
This isn’t like replacing the “master and slave” terminology with regard to connected devices. That one was warranted because it was often inaccurate and confusing. But forcing the adoption of main instead of master feels like someone got offended on someone else’s behalf because a word looked superficially like that other bad word, and apparently we can’t have an understanding that goes deeper than what letters it’s made up of.
Amerika ist wunderbar. This is an
--initial-branch=masterhousehold.At some point needlessly banning words just empowers bigots by letting them claim larger and larger parts of the vocabulary. Shouldn’t we try to reclaim words instead, and deprive the words of their power? Just “banning” words, especially in cases such as this one when the connection to master/slave is pretty weak, actually increases the negative power of the words and I’d argue empowers people with malicious intent
YES, BASED
IN THIS HOUSE WE COMMIT TO MASTER
This isn’t like replacing the “master and slave” terminology
I struggle with SPI (serial peripheral interface). Two of the pins are MOSI/MISO (master-out-slave-in and vice versa). There are some alternative namings, but this one seems especially ingrained in embedded dev
regardless of that, it’s never inconvenienced me and it’s still a net gain in readability, since
mainactually means what it means. have my shell scripts set up to use either one for any repo I’m in automatically.Honestly it’s not even about convenience. As far as breaking conventions go, this one has none-to-minimal impact – existing
masterbranches won’t suddenly become invalid. But it’s yet another instance of a subset of a subset of a subset of users getting to enforce their sensibilities for superficial reasons, and ultimately with zero effect regarding the cause they claim to represent; cultural and linguistic differences be damned.I’d love to be more specific, but I don’t want the comments to turn into a warzone.
People: hey you should think about this a bit and consider changing it to have a small positive impact
You: 🤬
Nobody’s forcing you to, nobody’s yelling at you, if you don’t do it it’s not a massive deal, you’re just yelling at clouds. Actually that’s not entirely true; I’m yelling at you because of your absurd overreaction to the mere idea of being a little thoughtful.
I don’t know if you got it from media, or you heard about this movement and for some reason immediately jumped to “they’re forcing us!”, but you really need to do some self reflection on why you got it so wrong and why you were so quick to do this outburst.
And don’t pretend like master doesn’t mean what it means.
Claiming that
masteron github stems from master recordings is not only disingenuous but also incorrect.As a FOSS alternative to BitKeeper, Git naturally reimplemented it’s naming conventions as well - and because of the power of version control - we can actually check what the original meaning was derived from:
And yes I agree that GitHub just changing the name of the default branch while keeping their ICE contracts is performative as fuck - which imo means we should both boycott GitHub and use naming conventions that don’t have a history related to one of the worst atrocities the global north has brought upon the world…
I concede the point about the word’s origin… not that I’ve seen anyone ever refer to a branch as a “slave”, nor do I think that it’s appropriate given that the branches are not subservient to the trunk/master/main/etc until one is merged into or rebased onto the other…
I also wrote a whole-ass speech about the modern world’s relation to the Atlantic slave trade and the guilt certain people are trying to inflict on everyone, but I know what the replies will be (we’re just redditors by another name after all) and it’s ultimately not a soapbox worth dying on. Anyway, my thesis is study history, learn its injustices, and learn how to do better effectively.
I personally don’t think the word “master” should be considered offensive - my wife has a master’s degree in deaf education - but I’ve switched to “main” because that seems to be the convention now and it really doesn’t have to be an issue.
I find “master” offensive, so I make sure I main bate instead.
There’s no “slave” convention in git so I’m not sure how it can be considered an issue (I get that drives being master and slave is a bit icky). But then, what is it a master of?
As others have said, “trunk” would have been a more sensible replacement.
But then, what is it a master of?
It’s about master copy. You have a master copy, and you have the development copies that are a copy of the master which is where you make your changes.
If i had to guess, the problem is that people don’t know how to use git and develop in the master
It’s a master the same way that an original recording (the final version before mass reproduction) is called a master; mixing and processing the raw media clips into such a recording is called mastering. It’s a convention that has existed long before computers were a thing.
(the image is a hyperlink)
On my app, tapping the image makes it full screen. I had to figure out how to get to the raw Markdown of the post and go from there.
For those who come after: https://slrpnk.net/comment/16864626
There’s an actual response to the issue at hand in that link; man didn’t just decide to drop a meme and peace out (though I probably would’ve assumed that was the case if it wasn’t for the edit)
Honest question. I cannot see if you are being serious here. If this is a real thing, is it because of US slavery history? No way you are saying your wife has a main degree in deaf education?
No, I said I don’t think the word “master” is inherently offensive - after all, my wife has a master’s degree. But to answer OP’s question, I’ve switched to “main” as my git branch because that seems to be the new convention.
I’m naming my production branch
goshujin-samaTrunk
I too am working on a repo that predates git.
master
I grew up with master, and main just feels weird.
All the people defending master-slave terminology in the comments 💀💀💀
Look it up, it was used in Bitkeeper that way iirc
Zeus
My repos use main because i guess that was the default, but i don’t really care. I mean i also call my window manager layout master/stack and i don’t see what’s wrong with that.
I get wanting to move away from “master,” but why in the world didn’t we use “trunk”
It was already a standard name, and it fits “branches,” etc.
I would have loved to go back to trunk. Also main and master have different meanings.
“trunk” is what it was called in SVN, too. Well, kind of. SVN didn’t have a real concept of branching like Git does, but the main development would almost always happen in a root directory called “trunk”.
I’m not sure why Bitkeeper used “master”, but that’s why Git called it that (Git was originally built as a replacement for Bitkeeper).
Fossil uses the term Trunk.
It’s a Git-alternative that has github-like features built into it; Used by SQLite devs
Mercurial, too.
ma<tab>*tabs Fedora*
Using master is stupid. Is your branch in charge of others? Is it more skilled than your other branches? Software engineering has too many crusty dorks that stick to their paradigms like it’s their religion. Acting like it’s their heritage to use outdated terms but also it doesn’t matter so that’s why they’ll keep using it.
The name have nothing to do with being in charge of others, skill level, or anything, but, sure.
Master make no sense. It fail to comunicate what role the default branch serve. Main is clearer, your default branch is the main one.
It’s a master the same way that an original recording (the final version before mass reproduction) is called a master; mixing and processing the raw media clips into such a recording is called mastering. It’s a convention that has existed long before computers were a thing.
main-master, with all branches being non-main masters. No slaves in my neighborhood.
