soy eating developer: * change the name of his master branch to "main" *

Me: That's it, you ended racism!

  • 9
    believe it or not, this is starting to become a bit of a touchy subject in these parts. Most I think are just tired of this, since it's old news. Some are still actively against the change and a few actually thing the change was a good thing...

    essentially what I'm trying to say is, this topic will not bring you much ++'s or sympathy anymore.

    I for one just name my branches "master" manually if necessary. Mostly out of spite tbh, I don't mind the name "main", I just hate how this change came to be and for what reasons.

    Also your "master/slave" tag is technically unrelated, since there is no such thing as a slave branch, which is exactly why renaming it in the name of anti-racism was retarded to begin with.
  • 4
    @Hazarth well, I wasn't expecting being popular anyway.

    I'm glad to live out of USA (or any English speaking country tbh), I don't have to experience the SJW storm first-hand, I get to see it splash my local culture and get the nonsense enforce on me on every single Git service I use...
  • 7
    I still init with master.

    Not just to fuck with the SJW but also because I would need to rewrite my automation templates to use main instead.

    Fuck snowflakes. I'm not here to make them feel good, I'm here to do my job as efficiently as possible.
  • 4

    yeah same... it's good living in a place that isn't completely retarded *yet*
  • 6
    @Hazarth I moved away from the metastasizing retardation, thankfully. But it still runs deep in the tech circles, which is unfortunately my career.

    Anyway, I also use master.
  • 1
    Whenever I make a new GitHub repo I see the main branch and I’m like:”oh yeah that happened, oh well whatever”
  • 1
    @petergriffin I noticed that last week on Gitlab and actually removed the repo and make it again but pushed my master branch to it
  • 0
    Is the SJW main race change part of the final solution for racism?
  • 1
    Soy is nice but it seems to be used with a negative connotation for some reason.
  • 0
    @catholic-emacs I commend you on your dedication, but you can rename branches and force push up to remote.
  • 3
    I don't want to get political but,

    I honestly think that it's more racist to make slavery about race/ethnicy. Because historicaly slavery happened in/to many ethnicies and many cultures. And I admit there was a massive market for black people. But there was a massive market for white people too in the Roman era, even in the middle ages.

    I don't believe what happened to those people shipped off to the Americas was right in any way, but making slavery about race is honesty more racist.

    And let's not pretend like this small change to git default naming makes any actual difference for people that are actually being discriminated against. It's just something that these activist can feel good and/or validated over. Ignoring that there is still massive problems that aren't affected at all by this nonsense.

    I don't feel like anyone is worth more or less based on ethnicy or skin colour. Just leave me alone FFS.
  • 2
    Well so much for not getting political lol
  • 2
    I will take a controversial standpoint here: I just dont give a fuck.
    Do you guys have nothing better to do than argue about unimportant stuff like this? People get offended by it? Just rename the branch ffs.
    Nothing more anoying than a discussion around a topic where there is nothing to gain. What benefit does it bring to keep it „master“? Nothing except useless discussion. Rename it and move on with life. Discuss about things that actually have a technical importance to it.
  • 2
    I said it once and I will say it again: Fuck SJW!

    Master is the way to go!
  • 3
    @Crismon how about no.

    I don't even care about political correctness of it, I'm taking a stand on the principal that my pipelines will need to be extended to now look for master and main.

    Master is master because it's the god damned MASTER RECORD. It's the same master that's used to define the first of something, or the best of something, or the quality of something.

    Want to change the nomenclature for databases, go for it.

    Want to change the nomenclature for disks, go for it.

    You can change these because they are contextually using a master/slave definition.

    Personally, I think it's the dumbest thing to get upset about when there's so many other things to get bent on that make the argument way better.
  • 4
    @Crismon It brings the benefit of discrediting companies like Apple who renamed their master for PR purposes while actively lobbying for forced labour in China.
  • 2
    @Crismon It also hopefully sets a standard of keeping politics out of engineering. Computer Science is too young for this to be a given.
  • 1
    Thats a perfect valid reason to not do it. For me and my projects its not a big deal and for the sake of avoiding arguments I would name any the branch of any future project main.
    Just inflating this discussion with idealism and personal opinion doesnt make sense.
  • 3
    @Crismon I think that's complacency rather than wanting to keep personal opinions out of work, since the entire movement to rename master grew out of personal opinions to begin with, and is based on neither logical nor statistical evidence that it would improve anything.
  • 2
    @Crismon personal opinion is how it was changed.

    It's not opinion that the master term in git is not a reference to subjugation.

    It's fact that it's a master record of what should be the most updated version of your code.

    If that's not the case, I want someone to pull the mental gymnastics it takes to explain why its use is offensive.
  • 0
    @sariel In all fairness, the name does come from Bitkeeper and it did have a slave counterpart there.
  • 1
    @lbfalvy although there's some opinions shared online about inferring this, git never used master in a slave context because it just didn't make sense.

    Just because you build a tool using similar nomenclatures doesn't mean that's why they used it.

    If this is the argument of why not to use it then I suggest instead of using main, which is very masculine and is derived from various Germanic names that describe strength, we use the term prime.

    At least if that's the case its true definition is closer to what it actually is.

    Also, I'll just call all my master branches optimus_prime.
  • 1
    @sariel I was just saying that the particular use of the word does originate from the master/slave relational duality, I agree that main isn't better, and also that in abscence of a slave the word doesn't have the same meaning anymore. I also think that we have no right to erase it from our dictionary as long as there are real functioning slave markets in the world, and that names like this are an important part of historical memory. I also find it ridiculous that Americans equated the word "slave" with African-american slaves, when slavery was thriving in the entire colonised world, and when serfdom which is pretty much slavery was only eradicated some time into the 20th century in most of Eastern-europe
  • 1
    @Crismon thought this was devrant, not devdiscussions
  • 4
    @Tonnoman0909 My people were in slavery to England for 400 years. You don't hear me bitching for reparations and other such shit. When the Roman empire was still going they thought about forcing slaves to wear something to indicate they were a slave. But the higher ups decided against it because they didn't want the slaves knowing how many slaves there were.

    Fact, people do fucked up things to others based upon all sorts of criteria. Race is just one thing of many.
Add Comment