You must log in or register to comment.
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.
No gods no master branches
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.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.
I’m naming my production branch
goshujin-samaI 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.
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.
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.
ma<tab>*tabs Fedora*
domMaster. I find this out of context fight against words pathetic.
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…
Because it is a historically settled down terminology that everyone understands and there is no adequate reason to change it.
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.
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?
I know someone with a master’s degree from university.
Well, he cut me a golden master copy of the track, anyway.
“I main in science degree of Evolutionary Biology” has a weird ring to it.
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).
Fossil uses the term Trunk.
It’s a Git-alternative that has github-like features built into it; Used by SQLite devs
Mercurial, too.
I would have loved to go back to trunk. Also main and master have different meanings.
Eh, I mix and match them…
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.
canonLove it 😆
mainin the streets,masterin the sheetsMommy.
Checkout Mommy
git checkout mommy
MOAB (mother of all branches)
about to start using mommy for all my projects now
fork mommy
“Obey your master! Master!”
Imagine darth vader calling palpatine main
Obey your main
