6 ms·
Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down
The discussion about renaming "master" branches to "main" or "default" in git for windows to address issues with "non-inclusive naming" has become very heated. The vast majority of developers argued against the change, some very vocal.
This resulted in git for windows administrators to go full exclusive and shut down the discussion completely for non team members, block many users and delete or minimize a large number of tweets.
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674
The end of the thread looks like a massacre.
- phakding 6y agoAs a rabid liberal, I think this is a stretch.
- info781 6y agoSchool master? Head master?
- vr46 6y agoThey don’t use those terms anymore as I discovered when talking to a great friend who is very decorated by the establishment for being a “Head Teacher”.
- OctaviusGaeus 6y agoMaster’s degree?
- verdverm 6y agoMaster of Ceremony, Master Switch, Gramdmaster
- EForEndeavour 6y agoI honestly can see middle schoolers snickering at the fact that their school's authority figure is seriously and officially referred to as "head" teacher.
- ch_sm 6y agoI‘ve always found the term „master bedroom“ weird.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jayd16 6y agoBut its not master as in master/slave (which I assume is the concern?) There is no slave branch. Its master like main or premier. Like a master bedroom.
- gimboland 6y agoAre you sure about that? I've seen a number of reports over the last few days that "master" in git is basically a holdover from BitKeeper which had master/slave repositories (and that in BitKeeper you use repos to "do" branching). I haven't looked into this in enough depth to convince myself either way, but I would do so before echoing your first sentence. Certainly a _lot_ of people are assuming it means "master copy" and has nothing to do with master/slave, but there do seem to be reasons to believe that's not actually historically true, i.e. a flawed assumption. Edit: getting downvoted for pointing out something true; somebody's feeling uncomfortable...
- jayd16 6y agoYou're right that I do not know the history. It might not be historically true but I would argue that's irrelevant to the conversation. (even as non relevant the conversation is to begin with!) Current perception is what matters. Beyond that, seems like if it actually did refer to a master/slave architecture, it seems like there would be more reason to keep it describing what it is. Maybe the term invokes some violence but so does the kill command.
- codegladiator 6y ago> I had actually started with "default", and was told it might be triggering for folks in financial trouble? So now 'default' is out too ? This is absurd.
- executive 6y agoTrunk is out too, since people hunt elephants.
- karmakaze 6y agoWhat was wrong with 'main'?
- doubleunplussed 6y agoIt's a very overloaded term. if someone says `master` I know they're talking about the git branch. If they say `main`, they could be talking about `main.c`, the `main()` function, or just using the regular English word 'main' as an adjective. `master` is very unambiguous due to not otherwise being a commonly used word in software. `trunk` or `mainline` would be better names than `main` for that reason (though mainline sometimes refers to specific people's master branches as with Linux, so that would unfortunately be colliding with that).
- exabrial 6y agogit master means "Mastering a skill", "Mastering a recording", or to "Master oneself". Please no virtue-signalling crap like this. It's a harmful distraction.
- gimboland 6y agoYou sure about that? Might want to google "git bitkeeper master slave" before making up your mind.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThe meaning should be assesed in today's context, not based on an obscure piece of software that existed decades ago, and most people have never heard of. The person could be factually wrong, but in a cultural sence he is correct - the word has another meaning.
- gimboland 6y agoOK, but those are only your opinions, even though you're stating them as if they're facts. Someone coming from a different culture might have a different opinion, of course.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- l1ska 6y agoI don't get it, if it makes someone uncomfortable, why not change it. What difference does it make?
- jayd16 6y agoThere's a ton of software that assumes the main branch is labeled master.
- gimboland 6y agoThat software is broken if it doesn't allow you to configure this (just as git does).
- jayd16 6y agoYou're right. But there's a lot of broken software out there that just trudges on with momentum. That said, I'm pretty sure you can just make a main branch and delete master in your personal repos. I don't think git itself needs master, does it?
- Jetroid 6y agoThere's a lot of 'broken' software that assumed any Windows version number with a 9 in it was made in the 90s. That doesn't mean that we can (nor should) throw out that software.
- alexandercrohde 6y agoSounds like a non-story? I'm not sure what the value is in linking it here, other than to try to provoke a similarly controversial flare.
- Etheryte 6y agoThat's over a 100 comments, many of them very calm and neutral, marked off-topic, over 10 people blocked, and then the whole discussion locked. I get that this is can be a heated discussion, but honestly most (although surely, not all) of those comments are about as neutral as it gets on this matter.
- smitty1e 6y agoIt's almost as though there were a prevailing orthodoxy, and dissent is so much CVS code.
- Jetroid 6y agoWhilst in theory, I'm neutral to the change on ethical grounds, I think in practice it will make things very confusing. Master/Slave is such an established pair of terms in tech that they have a loaded meaning as soon as you see them. If I see 'Master' and 'Slave' on an old hard disk, I know what that is. If I see "Configure one device to the master setting and the rest to slave.", I get a understanding of the relationship for free. I don't think we will get that with replacement terms, at least not in the short term, and we're just setting ourselves up for confusion.
- zikzak 6y ago> "Main" & "Secondary" has been proposed, enabling reusable interpretation of the remaining acronym labels for connecting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Term...
- gimboland 6y agoRight. And the fact that you don't find those terms offensive is part of your privilege. You're being invited to step outside of yourself and consider that for some people, it's not as clear-cut / apolitical as it is for you.
- derision 6y agoEvery non-white person I've seen commenting on this change has expressed they couldn't care less and do not give a second thought to these naming conventions. Maybe we should let their voices be heard rather than continue to try to speak for them?
- zzo38computer 6y agoI think that is a valid point. While I have not asked people about this myself, the article on All The Tropes wiki about "Political Correctness Gone Mad" has examples of people trying to change things to avoid offending people, resulting in the people they are trying to avoid offending complaining about it.
- renewiltord 6y agoWho genuinely gives a shit. Name it whatever you want. The less important things are, the more people will discuss them.
- zzo38computer 6y agoI think that there is no need to change these things. If you make a new version control system, then you can use whichever name you think is best (presumably whichever one is most descriptive, but not too long), but we need not change existing ones, nor change projects using them to use different names. I personally don't use git, but the naming of the default branch has nothing to do with it. I use Fossil, which uses "trunk" as the name for the default branch. I don't know what reason they chose this, but I don't really care much; I just use that because it is the software I use (even if some people hate it, which I suppose is inevitable). I also think that other terminology such as blacklist/whitelist, master/slave, etc need not be changed, unless the old terms are confusing or incorrect, which in some contexts there is the possibility that they might be. In some cases, such as motherboard vs mainboard, BC/AD vs BCE/CE, both sets of terms are in use so it is helpful to know them. Political correctness has gone mad (although this is nothing new, really).
- EForEndeavour 6y ago> I use Fossil, which uses "trunk" as the name for the default branch. I don't know what reason they chose this, but I don't really care much The "default branch" of a tree is a trunk, from which branches emerge.
- sebazzz 6y agoLet me state first of all that I am fully aware of the fact that I do not know what it is like to be the target of (classic) racism. Nor will I deny that there are some things that are just not right. However, where things go wrong in this discussion is the people who make complaining their profession. Surely you can think of some textbook examples of this. If you as a society conform to these people, the stock is not finished. Then there comes the next problem and the next, and so on and so forth. Part of the population, often a minority, is very much in favor of this. Another part of the population feels attacked by this and will resist strongly. The rest will be somewhere in between, but what is almost always the case is that these kinds of discussions lead to divisions within society. Division is often accompanied by strong emotions and strong opinions, which in turn leads to hateful behavior against each other. That often expresses itself in racism. And in principle that is not necessarily an insurmountable problem, provided there is enough interest in change. But there we come back to the point that many professional activists will never be good enough. Of course, it cannot be the case that all aspects of a culture and a country must be fully adapted. Certainly not at the expense of cohesion within society, with all the negative consequences that entails. What you get now is that everything, irrelevant and unnecessary, that can be classified as politically correct, is allowed. In fact, a critical view of the whole situation is immediately perceived as incorrect and racist. You now have the choice of fully conforming to this politically correct thinking and action, or you may experience serious negative consequences. Then I am talking about dismissal or a completely destroyed reputation. If you are also a white person, the consequences are only greater. And that is why I talked about classic racism in the beginning of my speech. Racism unfortunately also takes place the other way. A colored person may as well be a racist and a white person may as well be a victim of racism. What is completely ridiculous, however, is that there seem to be many people who believe that racism can exist exclusively with a colored person as its victim. Anyway, what I mainly want to go to, is that we should take a critical look at abuses within our society, but certainly not lose sight of reality. We need to live together more and better and not just get further away from each other. That also means that you sometimes have to be able to say: "now it is enough", "this is going too far". And that you will not then be called Hitler. If you tell your partner you love him or her every 10 minutes, it will lose value. It is no different in this matter. And let's not forget that there is always someone who can take offense somewhere. Should we just adjust everything? (Of course people take offense again ...) Note though that colored people are (much) more often victims of racism. Racism doesn't necessarily have to be words to someone. I treat people the way they treat me. If I don't know them, I treat them the way I want to be treated. I have never (consciously) been guilty of racism. What I take offense is that I cannot safely express my, quite subtle and nuanced, opinion on this topic. Not because my opinion is so radical, but because it is apparently not allowed to apply nuance at all and it only consists of right or wrong. The fact that I am white also means that I can afford less in this discussion. And I experience that as discrimination and racism.