It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

    • ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk
      332·
      4 months ago

      It’s all good and well until you start working in a repo that has both master and main branches for some reason, and it is not clear which is actually the master/main branch.

      • MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dkEnglish
        381·
        4 months ago

        Then you’re working in an idiotic repo. You could just as well have have a master and an actual_master branch. Similar idiocy.

        • ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk
          111·
          4 months ago

          It only takes one person to fuck it up. I agree it’s stupid, but introducing a conflicting standard increases the chances of someone fucking it up in the name of progressiveness. Needless to say I killed off the main branch that someone one had tried to make to replace the master branch.

        • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
          4·
          4 months ago

          A place I used to work at had that… The corp had rolled out a non-delete policy with something akin to *master, so when someone made a abrv_master branch it got protected and couldn’t be deleted anymore.

    • yogsototh@programming.dev
      3·
      4 months ago

      I work for s company that suddenly asked to rename a lot of stuff. This had consequences. It cost time, money, and created a disconnect between internal to the dev vocabulary that couldn’t be changed easily and user facing vocabulary. Also we were lucky but this could gave broken some long used API that we are proud not to version because the policy we have internally is “we will NEVER break the API”. And so far, for 8 years we still haven’t.