How is master in terms of git racially charged? (The article doesnt explain) Its the master copy/record. Its not the same as like the db master slave which i totally think needs looking at.
GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
91–100 of 251 posts
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#92Well on the bright side, "main" is shorter to type than "master".
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#93This is messed up. So Microsoft is so confident enough of their dominance in the development ecosystem (with eating up companies like GitHub and NPM) that they think they can just change the default branch name?
People looking at this from social justice are missing the point. Call me paranoid, but this may be the beginning of the infamous "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
I have nothing against MS, I think it's evil to disrespect and undermine open standard for the sake of social justice politics.
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#94I know this is going to be a PC war, but, I'm curious how they technically intend to do this. Is "main" just going to be a visual alias on the site? If so that will be really confusing if the branch is still technically called "master" and needs to be referred to that way in the command line. If they intend to actually rename the branches I don't know how they can do that without breaking all sorts of scripts and bui…
You'll have to use the whitewashed^Wcalcium-hydroxided PC version of git.
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. This is more like a swear word. No one would expect that calling it the "fuck" branch would be OK. Just because more people are OK with "master" doesn't change the fact that it bothers other people who are just trying to code. This isn't hard to understand.
Interesting. When Alfred Pennyworth calls Batman "master Bruce" he is actually badmouthing him. TIL
[deleted]
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#96Times are weird. Can't wait until I get to "git diversify primary". Now that I think about it, "pushing" "changes" to its "origin" sounds a lot like a dog whistle to me...
Kidding aside, I can understand why referring to something bad as "black" could bother some people. At the end of the day, I just want version control. I'll use whatever command I need to.
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#97I kind of understood when people didn't want to use "master-slave." I didn't agree with it, especially in the context of databases or other redundant distributed systems where the "slaves" really were required to follow all of the commands from the "master," and this relationship was better captured by this term than the bland "primary-secondary." (However, I actually prefer "primary and secondary" when talking about storage drives, since the "primary" drive is more like first among equals rather than something issuing commands.) But I could always understand it, given that "master-slave" has certain connotations.
This from GitHub, however, makes no sense.
The word "master" is overloaded. In the sense used in source control, the term has nothing to do with slavery or servitude; it simply is "an original from which copies can be made." In fact, in all of my 10 years of using git, I have yet to see a "slave" branch or anything implying servitude of any kind. And this is ignoring the fact that distributed source control is an inherently egalitarian and liberating proposition (centralized services like GitHub itself notwithstanding).
And who will benefit from this? What person suffering from oppression is going to be helped by being spared from seeing the word "master" (even without a concomitant term suggesting servitude)?
Count me out. I'll keep naming my default branch "master," because that's what it is: an original from which to make copies.
EDIT: In fact, I'd go so far as to say this will only harm the people it's trying to help. How much documentation exists out in the wild referring to the "master" branch? Who is more likely to rely on cobbled together Internet documentation when learning something new and relatively complicated like Git: a person of color without much support or mentorship, or a person from overrepresented groups who can likely just find a friend to ask? How is a person without much of a support network and trying to get into tech going to react when she has read about "checkout master," only to get to GitHub and see only "main."
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#98> but also terms like "blacklist" and "whitelist" for "allow list" and "deny/exclude list." Seriously?
Some etymology: blacklist (n.) also black-list, "list of persons who have incurred suspicion, earned punishment, or are for any reason deemed objectionable by the makers and users of the list," 1610s, from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (a sense attested from 1590s, in black book) + list (n.1). Specifically of employers' list of workers considered troublesome (usually for union activit…
To be 100% honest, when I first read the changes to whitelist/blacklist I thought, "Well, that's pretty stupid" but after reading your comment and a few others, it does actually seem quite racist.
Like someone else mentioned, without the racist connotations I wouldn't know whether black or white list was the 'good' one.
Language evolves constantly, always has and always will do. I'm not going to get hung up on things being renamed and I honestly do not see why people should be.
I'm still not sure about the 'master' branch change being required, as it's obvious (to me) the context in which master refers to (like a master copy or a key or something). There's no 'slave' branch (master/slave terminology is a problem).
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#99I always understood a VCS “master” branch to be in reference to “master” records / the “mastering” process of audio mixing, which in turn is a use of a sense of the verb “to master” akin to “to master one’s courage”—not conveying dominance, but rather the reaching of an apex in skill. If you’re in the market for a replacement that keeps the metaphorical power, though, I might suggest having a “mother” branch. “Mother…
I'm going to blow your mind...
The "mastering" process of audio mixing historically starts with the input of "slave" tapes...
Re: GitHub to replace “master” with alternative term to avoid slavery references
#100I always understood a VCS “master” branch to be in reference to “master” records / the “mastering” process of audio mixing, which in turn is a use of a sense of the verb “to master” akin to “to master one’s courage”—not conveying dominance, but rather the reaching of an apex in skill. If you’re in the market for a replacement that keeps the metaphorical power, though, I might suggest having a “mother” branch. “Mother…
It’s not. It comes from master/slave, and I’m desperately trying to find the mailing-list email where someone (I wanna say on a BSD mailing list, but it could be anything tbh) traces the etymology backwards through different VCS branches until we get to one where the concepts are clearly “master/slave”. If anybody has the link handy I’d really appreciate it.
This mail discusses some of the origins https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
It argues that git‘s master branch is most likely directly derived from the master and slave repository concept in bitkeeper.