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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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. primary also 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.
I use main because, although I never heard of anybody actually getting offended by master, it costs me nothing to use main instead. Also it looks prettier and seems to be the new convention ¯_(ツ)_/¯
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 main or master. And it took us a long time to find stragglers that weren’t as frequently updated but would suddenly break deploymend after minor changes.
Add comment