You must log in or # to comment.
Mommy.
about to start using mommy for all my projects now
MOAB (mother of all branches)
git checkout mommy
fork mommy
Checkout Mommy
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.
“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).
I would have loved to go back to trunk. Also main and master have different meanings.
Removed by mod
My scrum master said that we need new tickets to update the git branches and pipelines to use main instead of master since master was a bad word.
I asked him what his job title was again and there was a pause.
Then he said we can’t say that we are going to groom the code base anymore.
Switch from your scrum main to your scrum alt.
I’m gonna go ahead and assume your scrum main doesn’t groom themselves.
If we are not grooming the codebase, are we then waxing it?
Or is it more eco-friendly to let the codebase grow wild and untrimmed?
Why master? main is much clearer
Why not change “walkie talkie” to “radio phone”? It is so much cleaner.
Because change for the sake of change always brings more work than what it saves.
Why change something that works and everyone recognizes it? Of course, if this debate was there when the standard was created…
Removed by mod
everyone understands
no, new people learn git every day.
‘main’ is much clearer. It’s maybe not the same readability gain as ‘blocklist/allowlist’ over ‘blacklist/whitelist’, but it’s still there.
Why main? m is much clearer
we should make the empty string the name for the default branch
deleted by creator
Trunk would be better because of all the branches.
Just use
main. I’m not bothered by either, but I’m not in the demographic that would be bothered bymaster, so I usemainand STFU. It takes way less effort to switch tomain(if you haven’t already) than to come up with all this rhetoric about whymastershouldn’t trigger people.I would argue that it’s best/easiest to leave existing projects on master, and just use main for new ones. Either way I agree, people arw reactionary af about this issue
That’s why we switched, on both closed- and open-source projects. There’s just no winning an argument that puts you on the same side as racists.
At one point I was considering how, if someone asked on one of our public repos, I’d say “no” but at the same time post a receipt for a donation to the NAACP just to prove I wasn’t racist. Thankfully I realized how stupid an idea that was before it came to that.
Performative wokeness is a cancer, man. Did any of this arguing and vitriol actually help any marginalized group in STEM? I really fucking doubt it.
I can work with either, but I cannot and will not forgive any deliberate changes from main to master.
If you have a main and a master branch in the same repo and you don’t delete one at the very start of the project, God has abandoned the living bcz we’re lost and he has forsaken all that is good in the world.
I didn’t mean both simultaneously in the same project, lol.
Naming my branches like I name my word documents: master, main, main2, main2_FINAL, main_master, main_master_main, master_SUBMITTED, master_REVISED, master_REVISED_main_FINAL2,…
This one, officer, this one right here.
Master_blaster
I did that once… Because a script I worked with was hardcoded for it and was distributed as a binary…
deleted by creator
Main.
Don’t get me wrong, the whole debate is Microsoft just being performative (why not use your vast wealth to actually help people?). But honestly, putting the debate aside, “main” is just a clearer and more intuitive name.
I think it’s the same with blacklist/whitelist -> blocklist/allowlist.
Itallowlist/blocklist actually says what it does in the name without using the idea of racism and white supremacy. I wish more software would just use these terms by default. (maybe some aliases for the old names)The problem is that “master” means several things. There is Masters degree, master sword, master blacksmith, master copy, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with master / slave.
The Git “master” terminology came from “master copy”. There’s an email thread online where someone asked Linus Torvalds the origin and this is what he said.
The whole thing about it being about master / slave was some random uneducated person guessing, and they were wrong.
I agree that main is simpler and clearer, but it has nothing to do with racism.
Clarification: the “it” in the second sentence was referring to “blocklist/allowlist” specifically, not “main”
Of course the name “master” in the git context may mean something completely different from slavery or similar, but the possibility of misinterpretation is IMO another (maybe small) reason that new projects should consider using the clear and unambiguous “main” instead of “master”.
It actually says what it does in the name without using the idea of racism and white supremacy.
The origin of the words blacklist and whitelist doesn’t have anything to do with racism. If someone looks around and only sees racism, then who is the racist?
Even if the word’s origins aren’t racism, I hope you can see why having a blacklist with “bad” things on it that won’t be allowed and a whitelist with “good” things that are allowed maybe isn’t the friendliest terminology. (especially when there are more intuitive names available that avoid this problem)
Some would argue it’s culturally imperialistic to impose US cultural sensitivities on the rest of the international English community. Wasn’t the inventor of git Finnish? The entire world uses git.
canonLove it 😆
No one commits to
trunkanymore…
I think you are onto something. Especially Mastodon devs are losing so much.
The default branch for some projects is “production” since CD deploys on pushing to that branch
For new projects, main. My thought is that even if master is not offensive, since the industry has generally made the change, the only reason to stick with master is stubbornness or hating political correctness, neither of which aligns with my self-view so I’ll use main and move on.
In general if people are genuinely hurt by the use of some words, I’m not sadistic so I’ll avoid using them. From my perspective morality is the pursuit of the reduction of suffering, even if that suffering is internal.
It kills me that this take is so hard to find online.
Did I think calling the main branch “master” was offensive before this controversy? No, I’d never even considered it.
Does switching to calling it “main” impact me, like… at all? Also no. It’s like the lowest effort change to make.
If I can make my industry more welcoming to a more diverse group of people, that is a solid victory and way more important than the name of my primary git branch.
No one is offended by that word, at some point we need to stop wasting time on pointless debates and move on. If I start tweeting that I find “main” offensive are we going to have to find another name?
Don’t forget laziness. I have some projects that have been around forever and I am not changing it across my infra because I am lazy. I will do it next year…
Do you have any evidence that “the industry” has made the change? My personal experience says the opposite. Unless you mean “new repositories use the new default name” which says more about people simply not caring rather than anything else.
In general if people are genuinely hurt by the use of some words, I’m not sadistic so I’ll avoid using them
That’s a sane position. Only issue is that this have nothing to do with the question, and the people that were the most vocal about this issue had no business talking about it in the first place.
Ultimately, git is flexible; beyond some potential local and shared automation, anyone can call their local branches however they want, regardless of other and servers. Personally, changing years of habits and tooling (that probably should not have hardcoded some names in the first place) is not worth following a change proposed by misled people.
master
I grew up with master, and main just feels weird.
I always rename my branch to main. Because it’s shorter? That’s the extent of my reasoning. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
Whatever the repo is setup with.
No gods no master branches
Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master!
Let’s call it the kelda branch!
ma<tab>*tabs Fedora*
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?
