• onlinepersona@programming.dev
      138·
      1 day ago

      It wasn’t even tech bros. Some people started using opensource software, discovered the master branch and lost their shit. Nobody meaningful had ever connected the name to anything malevolent, but those people made themselves be offended in the name of people who weren’t even offended by it.

      Microsoft bought github and didn’t want the bad press so they renamed it after the twitter shitstorm. The professional victims then moved on to whatever else made noise on twitter and that was that.

      I force all new projects to use master as all my old scripts and repos use master. Twitter shitstorms scan stay where they should be: in the toilet bowl of the internet aka twitter.

      • uncouple9831@lemmy.zip
        1·
        1 day ago

        I don’t remember every detail but what I do remember is the wave starting with pre-elon Twitter devs announcing their changes and it started with web services that had master/slave terminology. Some of the new terms did make more sense, but some were clearly stretches. And twitter being based out of SF probably has put forth the effort to hire maybe 5 to 6 black people over it’s entire existence, so it felt especially shallow to me at the time. Hence the comment. Obviously there’s some assumptions there about twitters hiring practice but…I really don’t think I’m wrong, there’s definitely a cultural issue out there in the bay.

  • majster@lemmy.zipEnglish
    15·
    2 days ago

    I still see master branches everywhere, even my new personal repos. This git renaming story is one of the most stupid OSS pushes I remember. That and Gimp fork, that then died out I think.

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    2 days ago

    it has always bothered me that checkout is overloaded: it can switch branches or discard pending changes in an unrecoverable way.

    so, PSA, you can replicate the safe part of checkout with git switch and the unsafe with git restore.

  • rhabarba@feddit.org
    5020·
    2 days ago

    I renamed my master branch slaveowner. To make it more clear.

    It is software, my friends. It’s not a tribe of people.

    • cenzorrll@piefed.caEnglish
      236·
      2 days ago

      You could do that, but I could argue that master/slave nomenclature isnt a good scheme for this anyway, since it doesn’t control any other branches. Unlike master and slave drives from the olden days.

      By all means go ahead and keep your naming schemes. It’s your own stuff that after all, that for some reason you felt the need to tell everyone about. However, I might recommend trying to move past it seeing as language has an impact on how people think, and being edgy doesn’t exactly have a good track record of producing the best people.

      • psycotica0@lemmy.ca
        30·
        2 days ago

        I always assumed the name was more of a reference to audio Master Recordings.

        It’s the original tapes or whatever that all copies are derived from. It’s also where the term “remastering” comes from, as in “we went in and rebuilt a new master from the individual tracks, and this is the new master now”, versus just making another copy of the master for a re-release.

      • rhabarba@feddit.org
        42·
        2 days ago

        My “master” branch actually does control other branches, as releases are usually made from it, so they all depend on it.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      910·
      2 days ago

      Not gonna lie, the master branch thing has been perceived as problematic but I don’t typically see an issue with it. It’s similar to master bedroom or bath. Kind of fucked up name origin, but I don’t think anyone’s really making a fuss about it.

      Whatever the fuck you’re doing though feels like some gross, racist fantasy. It’s really weird, dude. If you think that’s funny you might need to go talk to some real people or touch grass.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
    10·
    2 days ago
    Transcription

    The “It’s an Older Meme, But It Checks Out” meme, featuring an image of an Imperial officer from Star Wars, with the caption:

    It’s an older branch, sir

    But it checks out

  • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
    91·
    2 days ago

    I usually create new repos through GitHub or another central repo’s system, where it defaults to calling the main branch main. But I did recently create a new repo with my local Git’s git init, and had to deal with a master branch on a completely new repo for the first time in a while. It was actually kinda a weird experience.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      24·
      2 days ago
      git checkout -b main
git branch -D master
git config --global init.defaultBranch main

      You don’t have to deal with shit if you don’t want to.

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      2 days ago

      If you haven’t already found it, you need to change your global git config (~/.gitconfig):

      git config --global init.defaultBranch main

      (or whatever you want to call it; e.g. daddy would work too)

      For any existing repositories you want to run the following command in the existing repository root (./.git/config):

      git config set init.defaultBranch main

    • pageflight@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, current company has their internal git server default to master and it was a little odd first time I created a new repo. Luckily all the CI templates can recognize either name so I just switched it.