• rtxn@lemmy.worldM
    0·
    16 days ago

    Locking comments. Had a good run, over half a day, but this was always headed for an emotional train wreck.

  • juipeltje@lemmy.world
    0·
    16 days ago

    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.

  • smiletolerantly@awful.systems
    0·
    16 days ago

    Last place of employment had develop as the default branch. Actually quite liked it. (There also was a main branch, which only got merged into as part of the release flow, so might as well have called it release, I suppose).

    Anyway, IMO it communicated “volatile and subject to change” a lot more clearly than things like “head of main” etc

      • monogram@feddit.nlEnglish
        0·
        16 days ago

        It takes 0.0001 seconds to fully auto complete to “develop” and “release” and removes any questions newcomers have on what they stand for.

  • NostraDavid@programming.dev
    0·
    16 days ago

    master until I die, if I can do something about it.

    One… One person complained over at Microsoft, and MS threw their weight around over at Github to change the default.

    It’s retarded. Why are we letting a brain-dead corporation dictate that we now have to work with two different branch names?

    And I’m fine with git getting the option to change the default name - that’s completely fine, but I am still peeved that Github changed the default. Stop taking up my brain space and make me change my default. Fuck you, Github! I’d make MS and Github pay for it if I could. For every day they would have main as default.

    Fuck off with that shit.

    Same with replacing whitelist with allowlist, breaking my pipeline. Fuck off with that retarded shit.

    PS: I’m normally not irate about issues like these, but for unknown reason this still pisses me off after 4+ years.

  • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    16 days ago

    I honestly don’t know, and I’m not at my PC to check. I assume it’s main, but with my ADHD I’ve never actually paid attention to that. All I ever remember are my branch names.

  • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    16 days ago

    main-master, with all branches being non-main masters. No slaves in my neighborhood.

  • rtxn@lemmy.worldM
    0·
    16 days ago

    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).

    Amerika ist wunderbar. --initial-branch=master.

    • ramsay@lemmy.world
      0·
      16 days ago

      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

    • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
      0·
      16 days ago

      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

    • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      16 days ago

      regardless of that, it’s never inconvenienced me and it’s still a net gain in readability, since main actually means what it means. have my shell scripts set up to use either one for any repo I’m in automatically.

      • rtxn@lemmy.worldM
        0·
        16 days ago

        Honestly it’s not even about convenience. As far as breaking conventions go, this one has none-to-minimal impact – existing master branches 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.

        And don’t pretend like master doesn’t mean what it means.

        • Nat (she/they)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          0·
          16 days ago

          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.

        • zeezee@slrpnk.net
          0·
          16 days ago

          And don’t pretend like master doesn’t mean what it means.

          Claiming that master on 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:

          We are then going to modify the file on both the master and slave repository and then merge the work.

          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…

          • rtxn@lemmy.worldM
            0·
            16 days ago

            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 just not worth defending.

  • vivendi@programming.devEnglish
    0·
    16 days ago

    Master. I find the whole “reasoning” behind the controversy absolute horseshit peddled by nontechnical people on the sidelines

    • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      16 days ago

      Just that master doesn’t actually makes much sense in most git workflows.

      If you understand master like you would understand the master/slave relationship in old tech, then of course, master seems to make sense until you realize that there is no slave in that sense or in name. Additional, master is rarely doing anything but having release or hot fixes being merged into it. Arguably dev is the master of the branches.

      In other words, master was always a bad name. It is silly to rename it because “racism” but it is at least equally silly to act like master is a much better name than “main” or “live” or “prod” or … Fuck, the list is long.

        • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
          0·
          16 days ago

          https://www.etymonline.com/word/master

          contrastive adjective (“he who is greater”)

          This is not to say that the term predates slavery and is neutral today in pejorative terms.

          Music used it because the original is of greater quality. The term is technically and syntactically correct here.

          Slavery used the term correctly, extensively and horribly. Honestly, it tainted it.

          Most of the people who say it’s no big deal or they don’t care have ancestors who were on the unimpacted or positively impacted side of slavery. Very “let them eat cake” tones. (even though that story itself is a misnomer)

          To be perfectly honest, the term in its etymological roots doesn’t fit well in the digital age for common use cases. It’s fallen into common parlance from the analog era, when it had a more direct meaning. Even though it’s not regularly being used as a pejorative, there’s (not zero, but) little harm in slowly phasing it out for better, more accurate terms like main or trunk or origin.

            • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
              0·
              16 days ago

              I’m not going to be bullied by liberal arts partisans into reconfiguring how my brain works

              I hate to tell you this, but that’s a fascist argument using tradition to block out change and accepting others. It’s a screw those other races/religions history and feelings because it makes me feel less powerful kind of statement. I doubt that’s your intent, but there it is.

        • maniii@lemmy.world
          0·
          16 days ago

          Based. We need to make music industry use Main records and not Master records from now on!

      • Johanno@feddit.org
        0·
        16 days ago

        You know that master has multiple meanings?

        Master of a slave is one of them.

        Master is also the title you get when you master sth.

        So the thing is that master was probably a thing before slaves were invented (I guess).