Live data from Hacker News

Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down

news.ycombinator.com

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down

#14
That's over a 100 comments, many of them very calm and neutral, marked off-topic, over 10 people blocked, and then the whole discussion locked. I get that this is can be a heated discussion, but honestly most (although surely, not all) of those comments are about as neutral as it gets on this matter.

Re: Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down

#15
post #8
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t use those terms anymore as I discovered when talking to a great friend who is very decorated by the establishment for being a “Head Teacher”.

Master of Ceremony, Master Switch, Gramdmaster

Master Boot Record

Re: Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down

#16
post #9

But its not master as in master/slave (which I assume is the concern?) There is no slave branch. Its master like main or premier. Like a master bedroom.

Are you sure about that? I've seen a number of reports over the last few days that "master" in git is basically a holdover from BitKeeper which had master/slave repositories (and that in BitKeeper you use repos to "do" branching). I haven't looked into this in enough depth to convince myself either way, but I would do so before echoing your first sentence. Certainly a _lot_ of people are assuming it means "master copy" and has nothing to do with master/slave, but there do seem to be reasons to believe that's not actually historically true, i.e. a flawed assumption.

Edit: getting downvoted for pointing out something true; somebody's feeling uncomfortable...

Re: Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down

#18

git master means "Mastering a skill", "Mastering a recording", or to "Master oneself". Please no virtue-signalling crap like this. It's a harmful distraction.

You sure about that? Might want to google "git bitkeeper master slave" before making up your mind.

Re: Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down

#19
post #17
post #12

I don't get it, if it makes someone uncomfortable, why not change it. What difference does it make?

There's a ton of software that assumes the main branch is labeled master.

That software is broken if it doesn't allow you to configure this (just as git does).

Re: Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down

#20
post #8
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t use those terms anymore as I discovered when talking to a great friend who is very decorated by the establishment for being a “Head Teacher”.

Master of Ceremony, Master Switch, Gramdmaster

None of which have any association with master/slave, unlike git where the convention of calling the default branch "master" comes from BitKeeper, with its master/slave repositories.
Post reply on HN