Instead of either, it’s good to have a more descriptive primary branch:
git checkout -b dontwritetothisbranchdirectlyyougottaopenaprfirstandhaveitreviewedandapprovedandthenpasstheautomatictests
Git checkout -b neverpushtothisbranchthismeansyou
git co -b nevergonnagiveyouupnevergonnaletyoudown
Git checkout -b branchprotectiononlyworksifyouarenotsetupwithadminprivilegesontherepoingithubthismeansyouhowardgodammit
Y’all. At least put some dashes between the words
Oh of course. But I was following the code standard set by the first one. I suspect everyone else was too.
howard knows what he did
git checkout -b dontcommitherejerrygit commit -m “that sign can’t stop me because i can’t read”
Still shorter than a java class name.
Try not to make memes that imply you’re not anti-slavery.
I‘m anti-slavery but that’s just not the reason I use main as default branch
yup same. I hate slavery just like anyone else but fail to see how naming a branch master has to do anything with it. Next are they gonna claim that master’s degree is pro slavery or something
Bachelor’s degree means you’re not married, so obviously an incel.
And doctors degree means you are legally allowed to perform surgery.
Do you mean “doctorate”? Because a “doctors degree” would usually be understood to be a medical degree, which means yes, you can definitely be a doctor lol
Don’t give the fucking outrage vampires any ideas.
I put this one in the same camp as whichever well-meaning person came up with “happy holidays”. Other religions and cultures don’t mind Westerners celebrating Christmas, and over-corrections like this just give fuel to the “political correctness gone mad” (now re-branded as anti-woke) crowd.
Happy Holidays makes perfect sense. You can start saying it in early December, whereas if you say Merry Christmas in early December, you seem like you’re not very good with dates. Or maybe you’re one of those people who’s really obsessed with Christmas. I’ll say Happy Holidays until around the 23rd, when I’ll say Merry Christmas until the 26th, back to Happy Holidays until the 31st, when I say Happy New Year.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/06/us/racism-words-phrases-slavery-trnd/index.html
Tldr: They’re a reminder of slavery, some people feel uncomfortable using / hearing them, it would not be hard for you to make their lifes a bit better by not using them but you can obviously do whatever you like.
RIght, because the best way to stop bad things from happening is to have everyone forget they happened…
deleted by creator
They’re a reminder of slavery, some people feel uncomfortable using / hearing them
If you can’t even interpret that little text, you should go back to grade 1 school
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The term “master” is often used with the term “slave” in computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_(technology)
So it wouldn’t be odd to assume that git’s use of the term “master” also refers to slavery.although in the context of version control, the term master simply refers to the gold master, a term borrowed from the recording industry which refers to the final mixed version of a recording, and does not have a corresponding slave.
Either way, I think “main branch” is easier to say, so it’s a win.
deleted by creator
Idk, same people who think naming git branches master is somehow pro slavery? Whoever they are
deleted by creator
I can’t wait for asshats to start calling for gender fluid connectors. What’s that, male 3.5mm connector, did you just assume my connectors identity?
I use
mainbecause, although I never heard of anybody actually getting offended bymaster, it costs me nothing to usemaininstead. Also it looks prettier and seems to be the new convention ¯\_(ツ)_/¯No disrespect, but asking everyone to remove words from the English language because they may offend a small group of oversensitive people is one of the most frustrating social initiatives of our time. “Master” makes sense for the job and unless we’re also putting “Slave” and “Cotton” on the dictionary chopping block, the arguement will always seem arbitrary to me.
deleted by creator
It is much easier for lots of western progressives (i.e. moderates if that label was used properly) to fix a naming scheme than reevaluate the exploitative structures on which their lives are based.
unless we’re also putting “Slave” and “Cotton” on the dictionary chopping block
Aren’t we though? At least when it comes to tech, Master-Slave terminology has been largely deprecated in favor of other terms.
The only reason you think “master” makes sense is because you’re used to it. It’s actually quite a weird connection to make, if you aren’t used to it. “Main” is much more straight forward. And nobody is really demanding people stop using “master”, so far as I am aware, it’s just that people are making that choice themselves.
I vote for naming this branch “mommy”, since all other branches are it’s offspring, and related to it.
name it daddy so i can open an issue and say i have daddy issues
And nobody is really demanding people stop using “master”, so far as I am aware
GitHub, GitLab, and git itself, are all using
mainas the default name of the default branch, by default.Yes that is the point. They made the choice to change their default. You can still make the choice to name your branches, especially the main one, as you like. Setting it for a project is less work than complaining about it.
More to the point it refers to relation between elements and not the political correctness of the act. Just how the terminology is used in books, but reading one doesn’t imply you are a racist or condone slavery.
I use “secondary” as my default branch, because fuck the rules.
Some men just want to watch the world burn
secondary_final___steves
Master sounded so much cooler man
Like yeah I’m a master of linux
Literally no connotation to slavery when the word slave isn’t even used in the git terminology
We’re just used to it though. What does master have above main in terms of communicating context?
master is cooler, also reminds he-man!
I use main as my default branch because it’s what Git has been defaulting to for some time now
Git’s still master by default; github uses main for new repositories.
You mean github.
I use
masterbecause I’m nostalgic. If it matters that much, though, I’ll start usingtrunk(like we used to back in the days of SVN).Don’t speak the name of that horror!
At least it was better than CVS
Trunk makes absolutely no sense. How does something “branch” from a “trunk”? That’s lunacy.
Surely you’ve heard of trees.
Yes, I’m joking.
It’s a branch coming from the trunk?
You’re speaking crazy talk.
trunk sounds cook. reminds me of that Dragon Ball character, naruto
Hey I still use SVN
How can you? I would understand if you have to, but Mercurial/Git approach is so much more flexible.
Oh I don’t give a single fuck about the discussion, it’s technology, not politics. I am more upset that my company has some legacy repositories with master and the newer ones with a main branch. So everytime I want to create a MR with push options via command line I need to change main to master or visa versa.
This is a huge pain in the ass for us as well. We have some automation with development environment and deployment of certain scripts. We had to redo a good chunk of them to first test whether there’s
mainormaster. And it took us a long time to find stragglers that weren’t as frequently updated but would suddenly break deploymend after minor changes.
I also think it’s more descriptive. Just like blocklist and allowlist.
m, I win.
n
my m is shorter than yours
wait…
r
no…
╷
Oh, how upset I was by that decision. I still call out GitHub online every now and then thanking them for solving slavery by messing up my deployment scripts and development environments.
I use GitHub and all my older repos have a master branch with no forced change. When did they force a change? I think you are mistaken.
Had to refresh my memory, it’s been a while. They didn’t change branch on existing projects, but they did change it on new repos to main by default. Our tools indeed created repositories and configured everything for the developer automatically. However GitHub’s policy meant that you had to either change the tools to detect whether they are working with old repo or new, or go to every new project after automatic configuration fails, configure default branch and then rerun the tool. Same thing then happened to few of our tools that were used for CI.
All in all they made more work for us for no reason other than be smug about it and it changed exactly nothing.
So your tooling was at fault for assuming something that has always been declared a convention not a rule. It is like assuming we will never reach the year 2000 and there only storing the last to digits for the year…
I think this is an excuse. Using the CLI you can easily create and specify the default branch. It’s also not difficult to check the branch name.
deleted by creator
Wait did GitHub retroactively change existing master branches to main, or was your stuff insanely fragile?
They never forced a retroactive change
They forced the change. If I wanted otherwise, I had to go and specify per project that master was the default branch, and there were many of those. And whole “insanely fragile” is just nonsense or are you trying to tell me people have conditions and scripts that detects what’s the default branch and use that instead of assuming default name that hasn’t changed for 15 years would remain default?
Whether you like Linus or not, whatever is released to users stops being a bug and becomes a feature. Not breaking user-space is a must. Instead they achieved nothing and caused a lot of unnecessary work to a lot of developers.
It speaks to the deep rooted whiteness of the industry that such a common-sense change is treated as completely bullshit even to this day.
It speaks to deep rooted butthurtness of USA boomers and constant need to enforce their stupid ass rules to others. It’s not racist, neither are blacklist or whitelist.
Even ignoring the question of racism, they are still stupid names.
Imagine teaching a child about this and it asks: Why is white allowed and black not? The only answer is, because it is like this for a long time. If we name them allowlist and denylist, it is obvious to all English speaking people. Shouldn’t we strive for descriptive names in programming?
However, if you use names whitelist an blacklist, you need to make the implicit connection white-positive black-negative. Yes obviously this does not make you racist if you do this in programming. But is it good?
White - light. Black - no light. White knight - good. Black knight - bad.
These two colors have a meaning. It has fuck all to do with skin color. And if you do, then you are helping to enable “useless racism” in the form of “this offends the black community”, while literally nobody gives a fuck.
Its a useless change in the sake of changing things. Everyone is tech eants the superstar and wants to say “Hey, you are using X (not Twitter in this case)! I made that, noice.”.
If someone decided to change it next week to
primary, would you be for or against it?Why is a filled checkbox positive and an empty checkbox negative
Sounds like white true black false is not universal
Yes colors have a meaning. However, they change ober time and culture. So why not use the word which describes exactly what we mean?
I agree, nowadays blacklist/whitelist has practically nothing to do with skin color. However i do think it is weird to use the same words for describing the appearance of people and good/bad.
Well i would be indifferent to the renaming to primary, because it doesn’t really matter to me what they call their branches, as long as it is descriptive.
primaryalso conveys the meaning. I would probably continue using main/dev because i see no reason to change.
I am not someone who says “You should change this!”. I just say, think of it, there are some reasons to change and the only reason to keep it, os that we did it always like this. I think there are reasons for selecting better words. And I am only annoyed by people who are outraged by things others do, which does not really affects them negatively. I get it that someone wants to continue using blacklist, master, etc. and I am ok with that.
AL/BL. See, not stupid at all. You just don’t want to admit you’re deeply racist and that’s your motivation for caring a non-zero shit about this.
Programmers will literally uproot their entire language of choice if it’s required it but can’t replace one definition? Give me a fucking break.
Taking this stuff personally is just intellectual laziness. The phrase “Allowlist” isn’t about that guy, and if he can’t grok that it isn’t he needs to work on himself.
I really don’t see the problem with switching the names.
You seem to be the only one in this entire discussion getting triggered about being more inclusive honestly. Nobody else cares…
But yeah, as others have said, the changes make sense regardless, and if it’s more inclusive, I have no problem with that. It’s not a big deal for me, but it might be for other people.
If you’re offended by the change, you can still use master as your main repo.
Deepthroating the boot isn’t making your life any less shitty.
I find it funny how many ppl complained about it when it came up. Now it is the default on github and other code forges. And now one cares anymore if it is master or main.
It was never about the name itself, but about breaking a convention for extremely dubious reasons.
Yes like companies who have thousands of repos with master as the main branch. It really wouldn’t make sense to switch halfway and be working on different repos with different primary branches.
Not the biggest hurdle to overcome but also… Why should you have to?
Do you really have to, tho? One can keep using
masters, move them tomains, or even symlink one to another so that everyone is comfortable with whatever they’re used to. Seems like a non-issue to me 🤷We’ve ended up with a 50:50 chance of what any repo is doing. All depends on when the repo was created (old ones are all master) and if the creator tried to preserve consistency or not (yes: master, no: took the default of main).
It’s annoying and pointless.
Symlink a git tag?
I mean smth like
git symbolic-ref refs/heads/master refs/heads/main. Not sure if it’s a bad practice or smth, tho
For a while, yes, you had to. Every new repo would be
mainwhile old ones remainedmaster. Tools that default to a specific branch aside now you had to remember and check which branch you are merging into every time.It’s an issue, because many tools default to a certain branch, and people do too. So each build pipeline has to be changed, each dev has to check for each repo he’s working on, whether it’s using main or master, etc, etc.
Just think about what hell would break loose, if Microsoft would be forced to rename C: to something else because someone was reminded of the "C word ".
On the plus side, forcing people to support alternative branch names surely has led to better software support for a core Git feature.
That’s like forcing people to have different color shoe laces and calling it good practice. In reality it changed nothing but forced a lot of people to work on solving issues with their scripts and automation tools for the sake of change instead of spending that time on writing actual code and fixing bugs.
Sb got offended for no reason, then companies decided to get public approval points out of it; nothing new or notable. Seriously, tf is the point of overanalyzing it like there’s nothing better to do?
This, sooo much this! People don’t realize that this change created a lot of unnecessary work to a lot of developers for no other reason than PR or to act smug about it. They solved slavery problem by renaming
mastertomainequally well as they solved homophobia and transphobia by allowing people to specify pronouns on their profiles. Who the hell cares if you identify as tree sap. However many do care if your code sucks or doesn’t follow coding style.deleted by creator
You sound like a slave owner, ngl
I am not pro slavery but I will not free my chattel slaves. People just break with this tradition for extremely dubious reasons.
Listen to yourself!
Edit: I was thinking about putting “/s” at the end but thought it was obvious enough. I was wrong
This is the epitome of Poe’s law
Why do I keep getting this comment? Maybe I should call myself Poe in the future
I think on the Fediverse (or just Lemmy?) I’ve seen more people who’d post your comment non-ironically. Or maybe they’re not serious either (but they’d have to be really committed to the bit).
I had a conversation recently where someone said they weren’t serious after several levels of comments that were downvoted into oblivion. I try to make myself understood in the second (or third) level of comments or, as in this case, in an edit
No, you should call yourself poe in the past so you can collect royalties on yourself.
I guess I once again forgot the “/s”. I’m not going to call me “Poe” at any point of time /s
Because its a non issue to developers.
It was only a hand wringing thing by internet bloggers.
Master is still the default branch when you run
git init.Depends on your version of git, I believe.
The latest version from kernel.org still uses master. It’s certainly possible for distro maintainers to change it on the versions they package though.
Yeah, seems like I’m wrong. I looked up the docs on git-scm.com and it says that the default branch name is “currently master, but this is subject to change in the future”. Maybe GitHub threw me off.
I use master because when I do ‘git init .’ I get a master branch and I am lazy enough to not rename it. As for typing it later on… . Well zsh does that for me
