Locking comments. Had a good run, over half a day, but this was always headed for an emotional train wreck.
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
341 points (96.0% liked)
linuxmemes
26215 readers
1661 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack users for any reason. This includes using blanket terms, like "every user of thing".
- Don't get baited into back-and-forth insults. We are not animals.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn, no politics, no trolling or ragebaiting.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, <loves/tolerates/hates> systemd, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
5. 🇬🇧 Language/язык/Sprache
- This is primarily an English-speaking community. 🇬🇧🇦🇺🇺🇸
- Comments written in other languages are allowed.
- The substance of a post should be comprehensible for people who only speak English.
- Titles and post bodies written in other languages will be allowed, but only as long as the above rule is observed.
6. (NEW!) Regarding public figures
We all have our opinions, and certain public figures can be divisive. Keep in mind that this is a community for memes and light-hearted fun, not for airing grievances or leveling accusations. - Keep discussions polite and free of disparagement.
- We are never in possession of all of the facts. Defamatory comments will not be tolerated.
- Discussions that get too heated will be locked and offending comments removed.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Personally I've come to hate main because it breaks habits easily. I'm working 75% of the time on master repos, but then I might need to do a quick edit on a main repo and suddenly my git checkout master doesn't work.
Or even copy pasting scripts from one project to another can easily break if you forget to change the branch
The reason behind the change is pretty stupid anyway (I'm against slavery but it shouldn't be treated like a slur still)
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.
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.
Calling an original, analogue recording a master does make sense, as all copies of it will by nature be of a lesser quality. This isn't the case for git branches tho.
I don't think the word "master" is indicating quality though, just that it's the "source" or "basis"
The name have nothing to do with being in charge of others, skill level, or anything, but, sure.
No one commits to trunk anymore....
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.
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.
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.
I mean, the problem people have with it isn't a name change or improving inclusivity. It's the fact that they feel like they are being bullied into doing something they had no input into in the name of inclusivity. What pisses people off is how, as soon as someone says "x" isn't maximally inclusive of some marginalized group, everyone has to change or else get called a categorically bad person.
For example, suppose you have a red hat that you enjoy wearing. You got it at wafflefest a decade ago, and it says "I <3 Waffles". Then one day, your boss sends out an email that no more red hats are allowed in the office because it might create an unwelcoming environment. You will, of course, be pissed off. Not because you can't wear your waffle hat anymore, but because your boss feels entitled to control the minutiae of you life like this. You'll think to yourself "fuck that guy, and fuck whoever brought up banning red hats in some corporate board room 1000 miles away. This is bullshit!"
People like their autonomy, and don't like being controlled. Doesn't matter if it is in the name of increased corporate profits, or inclusivity, or saving the bees, or dying of lung cancer. They don't care about the name of their git branch - they care that they feel like they are being forced to change it.
That analogy doesn't really apply though. The decision to change master to main was a collective one, not made by "some corporate board room 1000 miles away". It may feel like that's how it went down because you only noticed when GitHub changed their defaults or whatever, but that decision was not made in a vacuum, it was the result of lots of people saying "hey, this is a problem, let's fix it" for a long time before any actions were taken.
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?
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.
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…
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.
both. but majority are master cause that's the default and I'm too lazy to change nor do I really care.
Master. I find the whole "reasoning" behind the controversy absolute horseshit peddled by nontechnical people on the sidelines
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.
The master branch is called master not because of slavery. It's a master copy of the code, like how in the record industry there are master records. It has nothing to do with slavery
Based. We need to make music industry use Main records and not Master records from now on!
"Trunk records" for indie music seems 110% appropriate to me.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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).
before slaves were invented
Like, before the invention of agriculture?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The real answer is whichever is easiest. If you've got a master branch and it's a pain to switch, then I wouldn't do it. If you've got a badass coder who is disturbed by the terminology, then I'd say to do it to keep the peace. It depends on the situation.
Just use main. I'm not bothered by either, but I'm not in the demographic that would be bothered by master, so I use main and STFU. It takes way less effort to switch to main (if you haven't already) than to come up with all this rhetoric about why master shouldn'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
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't care which one you use, just don't change it once it's established. So many legacy Yocto projects got broken cause open source libraries changed their branch names.
I don’t care which one you use, just don’t change it once it’s established. So many legacy Yocto projects got broken cause open source libraries changed their branch names.
This was one of the arguments when the renaming was first proposed. "Just rename it, it won't break anything! It's only racists that want to keep the name!"
Sure, except for all the CI/CD scripts, release scripts, etc that all have "master" there and are now broken.
I know of a company that their entire CI pipeline was broken overnight because some "helpful" person renamed the branch to master but didn't bother checking out their pipelines...
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›