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

  • MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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.