• PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    regardless of that, it’s never inconvenienced me and it’s still a net gain in readability, since main actually means what it means. have my shell scripts set up to use either one for any repo I’m in automatically.

    • rtxn@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Honestly it’s not even about convenience. As far as breaking conventions go, this one has none-to-minimal impact – existing master branches won’t suddenly become invalid. But it’s yet another instance of a subset of a subset of a subset of users getting to enforce their sensibilities for superficial reasons, and ultimately with zero effect regarding the cause they claim to represent; cultural and linguistic differences be damned.

      I’d love to be more specific, but I don’t want the comments to turn into a warzone.

      And don’t pretend like master doesn’t mean what it means.

      • zeezee@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        And don’t pretend like master doesn’t mean what it means.

        Claiming that master on github stems from master recordings is not only disingenuous but also incorrect.

        As a FOSS alternative to BitKeeper, Git naturally reimplemented it’s naming conventions as well - and because of the power of version control - we can actually check what the original meaning was derived from:

        We are then going to modify the file on both the master and slave repository and then merge the work.

        And yes I agree that GitHub just changing the name of the default branch while keeping their ICE contracts is performative as fuck - which imo means we should both boycott GitHub and use naming conventions that don’t have a history related to one of the worst atrocities the global north has brought upon the world…

        • rtxn@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I concede the point about the word’s origin… not that I’ve seen anyone ever refer to a branch as a “slave”, nor do I think that it’s appropriate given that the branches are not subservient to the trunk/master/main/etc until one is merged into or rebased onto the other…

          I also wrote a whole-ass speech about the modern world’s relation to the Atlantic slave trade and the guilt certain people are trying to inflict on everyone, but I know what the replies will be (we’re just redditors by another name after all) and it’s ultimately not a soapbox worth dying on. Anyway, my thesis is study history, learn its injustices, and learn how to do better effectively.