linuxmemes

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

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.

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…

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.

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

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.

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.

"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).

git checkout mommy

about to start using mommy for all my projects now

MOAB (mother of all branches)

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.

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...

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.