I’ve heard people talking about the switch but I’ve not seen it yet on git for Windows. I’d upgrade but I need to set up a new remote box anyway (to replace my on-prem Bitbucket) and I don’t need any hassles between now and whenever I get a chance to do that.
I use
masterbecause I’m nostalgic. If it matters that much, though, I’ll start usingtrunk(like we used to back in the days of SVN).trunk sounds cook. reminds me of that Dragon Ball character, naruto
Don’t speak the name of that horror!
At least it was better than CVS
Hey I still use SVN
I like und use “main” because it’s shorter, but call it master branch in colloquial speech because it’s cooler.
m, I win.
I find it funny how many ppl complained about it when it came up. Now it is the default on github and other code forges. And now one cares anymore if it is master or main.
Master is still the default branch when you run
git init.Depends on your version of git, I believe.
The latest version from kernel.org still uses master. It’s certainly possible for distro maintainers to change it on the versions they package though.
Yeah, seems like I’m wrong. I looked up the docs on git-scm.com and it says that the default branch name is “currently master, but this is subject to change in the future”. Maybe GitHub threw me off.
It was never about the name itself, but about breaking a convention for extremely dubious reasons.
Sb got offended for no reason, then companies decided to get public approval points out of it; nothing new or notable. Seriously, tf is the point of overanalyzing it like there’s nothing better to do?
You sound like a slave owner, ngl
I am not pro slavery but I will not free my chattel slaves. People just break with this tradition for extremely dubious reasons.
Listen to yourself!
This is the epitome of Poe’s law
Why do I keep getting this comment? Maybe I should call myself Poe in the future
I think on the Fediverse (or just Lemmy?) I’ve seen more people who’d post your comment non-ironically. Or maybe they’re not serious either (but they’d have to be really committed to the bit).
I had a conversation recently where someone said they weren’t serious after several levels of comments that were downvoted into oblivion. I try to make myself understood in the second (or third) level of comments or, as in this case, in an edit
No, you should call yourself poe in the past so you can collect royalties on yourself.
On the plus side, forcing people to support alternative branch names surely has led to better software support for a core Git feature.
People like you are why JavaScript exists
Yes like companies who have thousands of repos with master as the main branch. It really wouldn’t make sense to switch halfway and be working on different repos with different primary branches.
Not the biggest hurdle to overcome but also… Why should you have to?
Do you really have to, tho? One can keep using
masters, move them tomains, or even symlink one to another so that everyone is comfortable with whatever they’re used to. Seems like a non-issue to me 🤷It’s an issue, because many tools default to a certain branch, and people do too. So each build pipeline has to be changed, each dev has to check for each repo he’s working on, whether it’s using main or master, etc, etc.
Just think about what hell would break loose, if Microsoft would be forced to rename C: to something else because someone was reminded of the "C word ".
We’ve ended up with a 50:50 chance of what any repo is doing. All depends on when the repo was created (old ones are all master) and if the creator tried to preserve consistency or not (yes: master, no: took the default of main).
It’s annoying and pointless.
Symlink a git tag?
I mean smth like
git symbolic-ref refs/heads/master refs/heads/main. Not sure if it’s a bad practice or smth, tho
Because its a non issue to developers.
It was only a hand wringing thing by internet bloggers.
Try not to make memes that imply you’re not anti-slavery.
I‘m anti-slavery but that’s just not the reason I use main as default branch
yup same. I hate slavery just like anyone else but fail to see how naming a branch master has to do anything with it. Next are they gonna claim that master’s degree is pro slavery or something
Who’s “they”?
Idk, same people who think naming git branches master is somehow pro slavery? Whoever they are
It’s not “pro slavery” and that has never been the framing of the issue. This is disingenuous.
Bachelor’s degree means you’re not married, so obviously an incel.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/us/racism-words-phrases-slavery-trnd/index.html
Tldr: They’re a reminder of slavery, some people feel uncomfortable using / hearing them, it would not be hard for you to make their lifes a bit better by not using them but you can obviously do whatever you like.
RIght, because the best way to stop bad things from happening is to have everyone forget they happened…
That isn’t remotely what they said. And if you seriously think we need to have “master branch” on GitHub in order to remember slavery I don’t know what to tell you.
They’re a reminder of slavery, some people feel uncomfortable using / hearing them
If you can’t even interpret that little text, you should go back to grade 1 school
So an inadvertent reminder/source of discomfort means someone is advocating for something?
Are you sure I’m the one who needs help interpreting text? On want planet could you read that as an accusation of being “Pro-slavery”? Like in favor of it. That’s patently absurd. And you know it’s absurd, you just don’t care because you’re trying to create the least charitable interpretation of someone’s text despite the fact that they were very clear with their language.
You also didn’t respond to the bit about how we don’t need “master branch” to remember slavery happened. So I’ll just assume you realized that was a ridiculous thing to say.
I put this one in the same camp as whichever well-meaning person came up with “happy holidays”. Other religions and cultures don’t mind Westerners celebrating Christmas, and over-corrections like this just give fuel to the “political correctness gone mad” (now re-branded as anti-woke) crowd.
The term “master” is often used with the term “slave” in computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_(technology)
So it wouldn’t be odd to assume that git’s use of the term “master” also refers to slavery.although in the context of version control, the term master simply refers to the gold master, a term borrowed from the recording industry which refers to the final mixed version of a recording, and does not have a corresponding slave.
Either way, I think “main branch” is easier to say, so it’s a win.
Trunk Master Race.
I also think it’s more descriptive. Just like blocklist and allowlist.
Master gang
Oh I don’t give a single fuck about the discussion, it’s technology, not politics. I am more upset that my company has some legacy repositories with master and the newer ones with a main branch. So everytime I want to create a MR with push options via command line I need to change main to master or visa versa.
does it count anything? like… no one’s gonna find my repository anyway
It speaks to the deep rooted whiteness of the industry that such a common-sense change is treated as completely bullshit even to this day.
It speaks to deep rooted butthurtness of USA boomers and constant need to enforce their stupid ass rules to others. It’s not racist, neither are blacklist or whitelist.
I really don’t see the problem with switching the names.
You seem to be the only one in this entire discussion getting triggered about being more inclusive honestly. Nobody else cares…
But yeah, as others have said, the changes make sense regardless, and if it’s more inclusive, I have no problem with that. It’s not a big deal for me, but it might be for other people.
If you’re offended by the change, you can still use master as your main repo.
Even ignoring the question of racism, they are still stupid names.
Imagine teaching a child about this and it asks: Why is white allowed and black not? The only answer is, because it is like this for a long time. If we name them allowlist and denylist, it is obvious to all English speaking people. Shouldn’t we strive for descriptive names in programming?
However, if you use names whitelist an blacklist, you need to make the implicit connection white-positive black-negative. Yes obviously this does not make you racist if you do this in programming. But is it good?
AL/BL. See, not stupid at all. You just don’t want to admit you’re deeply racist and that’s your motivation for caring a non-zero shit about this.
Programmers will literally uproot their entire language of choice if it’s required it but can’t replace one definition? Give me a fucking break.
Taking this stuff personally is just intellectual laziness. The phrase “Allowlist” isn’t about that guy, and if he can’t grok that it isn’t he needs to work on himself.
White - light. Black - no light. White knight - good. Black knight - bad.
These two colors have a meaning. It has fuck all to do with skin color. And if you do, then you are helping to enable “useless racism” in the form of “this offends the black community”, while literally nobody gives a fuck.
Its a useless change in the sake of changing things. Everyone is tech eants the superstar and wants to say “Hey, you are using X (not Twitter in this case)! I made that, noice.”.
If someone decided to change it next week to
primary, would you be for or against it?Why is a filled checkbox positive and an empty checkbox negative
Sounds like white true black false is not universal
Yes colors have a meaning. However, they change ober time and culture. So why not use the word which describes exactly what we mean?
I agree, nowadays blacklist/whitelist has practically nothing to do with skin color. However i do think it is weird to use the same words for describing the appearance of people and good/bad.
Well i would be indifferent to the renaming to primary, because it doesn’t really matter to me what they call their branches, as long as it is descriptive.
primaryalso conveys the meaning. I would probably continue using main/dev because i see no reason to change.
I am not someone who says “You should change this!”. I just say, think of it, there are some reasons to change and the only reason to keep it, os that we did it always like this. I think there are reasons for selecting better words. And I am only annoyed by people who are outraged by things others do, which does not really affects them negatively. I get it that someone wants to continue using blacklist, master, etc. and I am ok with that.
Deepthroating the boot isn’t making your life any less shitty.
I use master because when I do ‘git init .’ I get a master branch and I am lazy enough to not rename it. As for typing it later on… . Well zsh does that for me
Slave owning GitHub users everywhere offended
I use
mainbecause, although I never heard of anybody actually getting offended bymaster, it costs me nothing to usemaininstead. Also it looks prettier and seems to be the new convention ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
