3 ms·
Ask HN: Can't the GitHub switch from “master” to “main” be opt in?
Is it just me or it's weird as fuck?
There isn't even a way to opt-out, why do people jam shit like this onto their user's throats?
Yes it's politically correct but adding "git branch -M main" on every new repo the mankind creates is just a waste of goddamn bytes and kills a penguin every year for every extra cpu cycle it wastes.
---
Edit:
Nevermind, turns out you can skip that "git branch -M main" step. I'm a fucking idiot I guess.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoThey need a reason to feel like they've accomplished something short of actually reducing suffering. This stuff always gets sidelined into trivialities that are insulting to people who do, in fact, face injustice.
- eyeball 6y agoStand by to be called a racist.
- nikivi 6y agoIt is opt in. It's easy to change and it's nice that old branch histories will do directs to new branch. https://github.com/github/renaming https://github.com/github/renaming
- joshxyz 6y agoThanks! You're an angel! Okay I love GitHub again.
- onion2k 6y agoYes it's politically correct but adding "git branch -M main" on every new repo the mankind creates is just a waste of goddamn bytes and kills a penguin every year for every extra cpu cycle it wastes. If you really want to use an environmental argument it's very likely that using a branch name that's 2 characters shorter on every merge to the main/master branch, every list of branches, every Github page that displays the main/master branch name, etc will save a far greater amount of energy than renaming repos will ever use. On a random repo homepage the word 'master' appears 31 times in the HTML content, so switching to 'main' would reduce the bandwidth on every single page load by 62 characters[1]. Any repo that opts out must be run by a climate change denier. [1] Compression has been ignored to protect the argument.