This is a tiny change that has no substantial negative effect on anyone’s life. If they’d renamed “pull requests” to “merge requests” no one would care, at all. Let’s please not make a big deal out of it.
New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
31–40 of 126 posts
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#32I've a Master of Science degree, will that chance too? Is anyone offended by that terminology? [Edit] maybe I should clarify: in my native language master only has the connotation of mastery of a subject. A slave owner can't be called 'master', so we don't have that unpleasant crossover.
The line is always drawn somewhere, to answer the not very well veiled slippery slope argument. If and when that applies to this specific case, history will show. No one demands everything happen all at once.
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#33'master' branch is like a master recording, an original from which copies can be made off. I don't have a Master degree in English, but it feels someone is terribly confused.
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#34The etymology of "master" according to Wiktionary: From Middle English maister, mayster, meister, from Old English mǣster, mæġster, mæġester, mæġister, magister (“master”), from Latin magister (“chief, teacher, leader”), from Old Latin magester, from Proto-Indo-European *méǵh₂s, (as in magnus (“great”)) + -ester/-ister
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, i highly doubt any developer black or not ever looked and said “wow this master branch naming really makes me feel oppressed.” If this is you, please correct me. However, i do know lots of developers have bash scripts, terminal aliases, python workers that use the “master” terminology that will need to be changed. This seems like an absurd and unnecessary change to me, causing more net damage than benefit.…
As a black developer... this all just makes me a little sad. Terms like master/slave or whitelist/blacklist are common parlance and this attempt to remove these phrases for less well understood phrases just seems like an attempt to whitewash history for little to no gain. I'm a firm believer that language is dynamic and the meaning of words is the meanings we currently associate to them.
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#36I've a Master of Science degree, will that chance too? Is anyone offended by that terminology? [Edit] maybe I should clarify: in my native language master only has the connotation of mastery of a subject. A slave owner can't be called 'master', so we don't have that unpleasant crossover.
Isn't that obvious?
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#37'master' branch is like a master recording, an original from which copies can be made off. I don't have a Master degree in English, but it feels someone is terribly confused.
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#38I've a Master of Science degree, will that chance too? Is anyone offended by that terminology? [Edit] maybe I should clarify: in my native language master only has the connotation of mastery of a subject. A slave owner can't be called 'master', so we don't have that unpleasant crossover.
The fact that degrees are either a Bachelor's or Master's isn't inclusive language to women. Isn't that obvious?
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#39This is a tiny change that has no substantial negative effect on anyone’s life. If they’d renamed “pull requests” to “merge requests” no one would care, at all. Let’s please not make a big deal out of it.
You know, i highly doubt any developer black or not ever looked and said “wow this master branch naming really makes me feel oppressed.” If this is you, please correct me. However, i do know lots of developers have bash scripts, terminal aliases, python workers that use the “master” terminology that will need to be changed. This seems like an absurd and unnecessary change to me, causing more net damage than benefit.…
Switching from master to main is a good change.
The 'master-slave' terminology has been used in tech for a while (for example, IDE [0]). Yes, it's not intended to be a direct reference to slavery, but that's where the term originated and it's clearly used to mean "one thing is in charge, the other thing follows orders". Yes, there's no explicit 'slave' term in git, even though BitKeeper did (apparently - I've never used BitKeeper).
It's not effortless, but it's not hard to change from master to main ( [1] ).
Plus, it's a great excuse to learn (or sharpen) your grep/awk/sed/etc skills :)
----------------------------------------------
[0]: https://computer.howstuffworks.com/ide.htm#pt4
[1]: https://www.hanselman.com/blog/EasilyRenameYourGitDefaultBra...
Re: New GitHub repos to have default branches named “main” instead of “master”
#40Political correctness aside, "main" does sound like a more natural name for the main branch. The term "master" for a branch name always felt a little strange to me. One might ask, "What is master?" The answer usually is, "It is the main branch." The same thing held true for "trunk" in the SVN world, although it made more sense. One might ask, "What is trunk?" It requires a lengthy explanation, "It is the main develop…