I don’t think, it’s better. The master branch is the master-copy, the original, and all the other branches, the other copies, are modifications of it. That’s how the term is used in the music industry and for documents.
I don’t think, “main” is worse either. If we were choosing it as name at the start of git’s existence, I would absolutely not be opposed to it.
But changing it now, will break many scripts, will require updating of documentation and will cause confusion and various long-term problems, especially if not everyone switches to the new default.
And worst of all, there is no sensible reason for doing this. The term “master” is used all the time, and basically never for referring to slavery.
They do use different branch names all the time, e.g. many projects have a development branch or branches for developing new (larger) features, but it’s still useful to have one standardized branch name in each project and especially so for the code that you want to present to the outside.
It’s what GitHub, GitLab, Gitea etc. show by default. It’s what gets checked out when you run “git clone”. It’s just been perfectly clear terminology up until now, for discussing the handling of branches.
And now we’re throwing that all away for really just no reason. I’m not saying that I disagree with the reason, I’m saying there is no reason presented. “Master” is not related to slavery in any way here. And no, calling me a right-wing snowflake is not a reason either, especially since I’m a far-left snowflake.
I had a think about this, and I don’t want to drag this out too much longer anymore, but I think this is important:
I don’t think, that’s a good enough reason, specifically because many will think it’s bullshit. Which is an important metric in itself, because those who think it’s bullshit, will take the BLM movement less serious and will become more receptive for right-wing ideology.
It’s well possible that this was even started by right-wing trolls trying to achieve exactly that. Wouldn’t be the first time.
And I do think, it’s absolutely worth offending those hypothetical black people that actually do get offended by this, in order to prevent strengthening the right wing. Because the right wing is what causes the actual problems for black people.
I don’t think, it’s better. The master branch is the master-copy, the original, and all the other branches, the other copies, are modifications of it. That’s how the term is used in the music industry and for documents.
I don’t think, “main” is worse either. If we were choosing it as name at the start of git’s existence, I would absolutely not be opposed to it.
But changing it now, will break many scripts, will require updating of documentation and will cause confusion and various long-term problems, especially if not everyone switches to the new default. And worst of all, there is no sensible reason for doing this. The term “master” is used all the time, and basically never for referring to slavery.
People use different branches all the time, and non-programmers wouldnt even notice this change if it wasnt for the whining of right-wing snowflakes.
They do use different branch names all the time, e.g. many projects have a development branch or branches for developing new (larger) features, but it’s still useful to have one standardized branch name in each project and especially so for the code that you want to present to the outside.
It’s what GitHub, GitLab, Gitea etc. show by default. It’s what gets checked out when you run “git clone”. It’s just been perfectly clear terminology up until now, for discussing the handling of branches.
And now we’re throwing that all away for really just no reason. I’m not saying that I disagree with the reason, I’m saying there is no reason presented. “Master” is not related to slavery in any way here. And no, calling me a right-wing snowflake is not a reason either, especially since I’m a far-left snowflake.
According to this it actually is a reference to slavery.
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html
HOly fuck. That guy whom it was a reply to got owned by facts but kept yapping on about “master” copy in the replies lol
I had a think about this, and I don’t want to drag this out too much longer anymore, but I think this is important:
I don’t think, that’s a good enough reason, specifically because many will think it’s bullshit. Which is an important metric in itself, because those who think it’s bullshit, will take the BLM movement less serious and will become more receptive for right-wing ideology.
It’s well possible that this was even started by right-wing trolls trying to achieve exactly that. Wouldn’t be the first time.
And I do think, it’s absolutely worth offending those hypothetical black people that actually do get offended by this, in order to prevent strengthening the right wing. Because the right wing is what causes the actual problems for black people.