about to start using mommy for all my projects now

git checkout mommy

Ah, I see you're a degenerate of culture as well.

fork mommy

Checkout Mommy

"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).

I would have loved to go back to trunk. Also main and master have different meanings.

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.

I find "master" offensive, so I make sure I main bate instead.

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?

Love it 😆

I think you are onto something. Especially Mastodon devs are losing so much.

*tabs Fedora*

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...

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…

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.

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.

I too am working on a repo that predates git.

Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master!

Let's call it the kelda branch!

Imagine darth vader calling palpatine main

Obey your main

I think it's the same with blacklist/whitelist -> blocklist/allowlist. It allowlist/blocklist actually says what it does in the name without using the idea of racism and white supremacy. I wish more software would just use these terms by default. (maybe some aliases for the old names)

The pro versions: dev, rls

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

That's why we switched, on both closed- and open-source projects. There's just no winning an argument that puts you on the same side as racists.

At one point I was considering how, if someone asked on one of our public repos, I'd say "no" but at the same time post a receipt for a donation to the NAACP just to prove I wasn't racist. Thankfully I realized how stupid an idea that was before it came to that.

Performative wokeness is a cancer, man. Did any of this arguing and vitriol actually help any marginalized group in STEM? I really fucking doubt it.

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

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

YES, BASED

IN THIS HOUSE WE COMMIT TO MASTER

I did that once... Because a script I worked with was hardcoded for it and was distributed as a binary...

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.