5 ms·

Ohh c'mon seriously. This is absurd and will break lots of docs bye to --set-upstream origin master

by agustif 6y ago

jstummbillig 6y ago
It's not absurd. It will break a lot of docs. We will live.
- aeonsky 6y ago
  It will break a lot of code and a lot of tools. For what? To virtue signal about something that has nothing to do with the current civil rights movement? Should we change the word master data? Git is also an offensive term. This is absurd.
  - gowld 6y ago
    Git is a self deprecating name. It's not a term that normalizes (very) bad behavior. "Gimp" is a better example of a bad name.
  - oarabbus_ 6y ago
    "It will break a lot of code" Yes, because there's no precedent for non-essential changes which break code. Maybe there's a good reason not to change the "master/slave" terminology but this sure as hell ain't it.
    - aeonsky 6y ago
      Once again, the usage here has nothing to do with master-slave idea. Obviously there is precedent for breaking changes. The benefits must outweigh the costs, the cost here is monumental, and the benefit here is non-existent.
      - oarabbus_ 6y ago
        >and the benefit here is non-existent. To be clear, I'm not advocating for this change to occur. But clearly others disagree with you on this bit.
  - komali2 6y ago
    I sense a bad faith interpretation of the word "offensive." The issue with master/slave is way more than "it's offensive." By changing the language, people are taking explicit steps to move away from language rooted in racism. That's an important part of moving a culture away from normalization of oppression of minorities.
    - aeonsky 6y ago
      Git's use of master has nothing to do with the master/slave idea. The word master been a word longer than it has been associated with slavery. Not every use of master is offensive/rooted in slavery/racism.
      - komali2 6y ago
        > The word master been a word longer than it has been associated with slavery. Hah, what? Slavery is as old as language, so I find this an interesting suggestion. Edit: good points about the origin of language below. Another interesting question: if there had been more black computer scientists in early day MIT, Stanford, etc, would these terms have been adapted to the new technologies?
        allan_s 6y ago
        master -> maetre (old french) -> magister latin magister in latin, as far as I remember is the term used for the teacher (which is the same meaning in modern french, maître is how you call a teacher of primary school)
        bonzini 6y ago
        Latin used dominus for the master of a slave, and magister for someone who mastered or taught something.
    - druddha 6y ago
      But in this case, the term "slave" isn't being used, right?
    - 6y ago
gowld 6y ago
Or they can quietly allow use of 'master' as an alias until it falls out of use.
- Steltek 6y ago
  Careful, there's nothing more permanent than a temporary fix. Github is changing the default branch name for new repos. New repos tend to have the most fresh eyes and agility. It shouldn't hurt too bad.
andys627 6y ago
>> “If it prevents even a single black person from feeling more isolated in the tech community, feels like a no-brainer to me”. This is worth breaking the docs. They’ll be easy to fix.
cooper12 6y ago
Naming the default branch "master" is only a convention, not a requirement. Therefore, docs should not make any assumption about the name but give it as an example or <variable>. The deficiency here is clearly in the docs.
- bonzini 6y ago
  You said that: any example that uses "git rebase origin/master" would be broken.
  - ivan_gammel 6y ago
    It will not be broken, it will be just an example for a random branch with a strange name. People which are not able to understand the abstraction and to apply it to their own repository structure, must choose another job.
  - komali2 6y ago
    Only if a project has used master as the main branch. We use "develop" for whatever reason and "master" (created by default by gitlab) hasn't updated since initial commit. I agree that teams should be making these decisions on their own. It's just a branch name.
- ivan_gammel 6y ago
  This. Poor choice of the original name was codified as some law, but it has never been a law and it’s time to clean up. I have seen discussions around the topic: “we have the master branch, what should we store there?” Semantics of the name were lost long time ago and it became just a random magic string in a ritual, which is not easy to explain or understand.
dictum 6y ago
Docs are less likely to be broken if GitHub implements some automated, global way to rename the main branch: when this isn't done in an ad-hoc, per-repo way, they can implement logic to redirect URLs. (Or, for a quick and dirty fix, always redirect master to the main branch)
- ubercow13 6y ago
  What if you already have a main branch?

Ohh c'mon seriously. This is absurd and will break lots of docs bye to --set-upstream origin master

jstummbillig 6y ago

It's not absurd. It will break a lot of docs. We will live.

aeonsky 6y ago
It will break a lot of code and a lot of tools. For what? To virtue signal about something that has nothing to do with the current civil rights movement? Should we change the word master data? Git is also an offensive term. This is absurd.
- gowld 6y ago
  Git is a self deprecating name. It's not a term that normalizes (very) bad behavior. "Gimp" is a better example of a bad name.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  "It will break a lot of code" Yes, because there's no precedent for non-essential changes which break code. Maybe there's a good reason not to change the "master/slave" terminology but this sure as hell ain't it.
  - aeonsky 6y ago
    Once again, the usage here has nothing to do with master-slave idea. Obviously there is precedent for breaking changes. The benefits must outweigh the costs, the cost here is monumental, and the benefit here is non-existent.
    - oarabbus_ 6y ago
      >and the benefit here is non-existent. To be clear, I'm not advocating for this change to occur. But clearly others disagree with you on this bit.
- komali2 6y ago
  I sense a bad faith interpretation of the word "offensive." The issue with master/slave is way more than "it's offensive." By changing the language, people are taking explicit steps to move away from language rooted in racism. That's an important part of moving a culture away from normalization of oppression of minorities.
  - aeonsky 6y ago
    Git's use of master has nothing to do with the master/slave idea. The word master been a word longer than it has been associated with slavery. Not every use of master is offensive/rooted in slavery/racism.
    - komali2 6y ago
      > The word master been a word longer than it has been associated with slavery. Hah, what? Slavery is as old as language, so I find this an interesting suggestion. Edit: good points about the origin of language below. Another interesting question: if there had been more black computer scientists in early day MIT, Stanford, etc, would these terms have been adapted to the new technologies?
      - allan_s 6y ago
        master -> maetre (old french) -> magister latin magister in latin, as far as I remember is the term used for the teacher (which is the same meaning in modern french, maître is how you call a teacher of primary school)
      - bonzini 6y ago
        Latin used dominus for the master of a slave, and magister for someone who mastered or taught something.
  - druddha 6y ago
    But in this case, the term "slave" isn't being used, right?
  - 6y ago

gowld 6y ago

Or they can quietly allow use of 'master' as an alias until it falls out of use.

Steltek 6y ago
Careful, there's nothing more permanent than a temporary fix. Github is changing the default branch name for new repos. New repos tend to have the most fresh eyes and agility. It shouldn't hurt too bad.

andys627 6y ago

>> “If it prevents even a single black person from feeling more isolated in the tech community, feels like a no-brainer to me”. This is worth breaking the docs. They’ll be easy to fix.

cooper12 6y ago

Naming the default branch "master" is only a convention, not a requirement. Therefore, docs should not make any assumption about the name but give it as an example or <variable>. The deficiency here is clearly in the docs.

bonzini 6y ago
You said that: any example that uses "git rebase origin/master" would be broken.
- ivan_gammel 6y ago
  It will not be broken, it will be just an example for a random branch with a strange name. People which are not able to understand the abstraction and to apply it to their own repository structure, must choose another job.
- komali2 6y ago
  Only if a project has used master as the main branch. We use "develop" for whatever reason and "master" (created by default by gitlab) hasn't updated since initial commit. I agree that teams should be making these decisions on their own. It's just a branch name.
ivan_gammel 6y ago
This. Poor choice of the original name was codified as some law, but it has never been a law and it’s time to clean up. I have seen discussions around the topic: “we have the master branch, what should we store there?” Semantics of the name were lost long time ago and it became just a random magic string in a ritual, which is not easy to explain or understand.

dictum 6y ago

Docs are less likely to be broken if GitHub implements some automated, global way to rename the main branch: when this isn't done in an ad-hoc, per-repo way, they can implement logic to redirect URLs. (Or, for a quick and dirty fix, always redirect master to the main branch)

ubercow13 6y ago
What if you already have a main branch?