5 ms·

Because of the whole "master" meaning a slave owner thing that the progressive left seems to think it means and it apparently hurt enough feelings to make it a

Because of the whole "master" meaning a slave owner thing that the progressive left seems to think it means and it apparently hurt enough feelings to make it a movement (default main branch on Github repos is now also "main" because of this), and then you have companies that desperately try to be hip and cool, and they do this to get social clout. The whole thing is pretty sad if you ask me, but what do I know.

culi 4y ago
lol somehow I doubt companies are gaining much social clout for changing their default branch names...
- arinlen 4y ago
  > lol somehow I doubt companies are gaining much social clout for changing their default branch names... No one is expecting, or seeking, major wins by being mindful of the pervasive nature of non-inclusive language. But it's such a low-effort thing to do that there is actually no justification for avoiding doing the right thing.
bergenty 4y ago
iueotnmunto 4y ago
It takes a few minutes to switch. Maybe a bit more to rebind all CI scripts etc in a project as large as react. There are some things that I don't fully get (slavery was never big in my country). It takes a few minutes of effort to not be an asshole (real or perceived), so I just do it rather than thinking to much about whether or not the wider population should be offended or not.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- askonomm 4y ago
  Yes, you're right, and I also do it. Doesn't mean however that I need to bury my head in the sand in topics such as this and never mention it.
  - drunkpotato 4y ago
    You don't need to, but you might want to. It'll make life more pleasant and less angry.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Not wanting to be seen as an asshole is how we end up with a never ending stream of bullshit because no one is brave enough to stand up. How much time has been wasted on feel good crap that serves only to give the illusion of caring. Big tech is happy to rename their git branches while doing nothing about the actual evil they commit.
- hinkley 4y ago
  We do not have a monorepo, and you can practically watch the gears turn when we mention any process change that involves changing the CI scripts. And this part may be projection, but I am nearly certain I see people subconsciously avoiding solutions that involve systemic CI changes. I got tired of making clerical errors or helping others fix theirs and went through and moved a bunch of configuration out of our CI configs into source control. So for my projects making changes is easier, but I still bump into mature projects that still have the old patterns because nobody even wanted to edit the configs one last time.
  - iueotnmunto 4y ago
    I fully understand not changing for that reason and don't think anyone would think less of a justifiably difficult situation. But at the same time, what you described is probably indicative of deeper issues which should be considered technical debt, not because of political correctness but because there may be other inflexibility which inhibit productivity in the future.
Karawebnetwork 4y ago
This has nothing to do with left/right. This is a racial issue. People of color exist along the entire political spectrum.
- askonomm 4y ago
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  I'd say it's not even only a racial issue (but predominately was/is in the United States), but a socioeconomic one, with racial correlations. There are plenty of modern day indentured servitude exploitations afoot: the leaked internal Amazon documents about it being business policy to keep engineering hires for less than two years, while preserving managers who fire them, is an example that springs to mind.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Is it still the case that Amazon gives new hires a hiring bonus that has to be paid back if they don't stay at the company for a set amount of time? If you're also targeting fresh college grads... That's not exactly indentured servitude but it's too close to the Island of Pleasure (Pinocchio) for my comfort.
    - jjtheblunt 4y ago
      not sure
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Switching master to main has literally nothing to do with the imaginary (in this particular case) racial issue. Master bedrooms and master records exist. People master their trades. And so on and so on. My understanding is that the absolute vast majority of people of color couldn't care less if git branch was called master or main.
  - 4y ago
hinkley 4y ago
I'm on board for removing 'master-slave' terminology from peripherals and replication terminology. I'm on board for removing blacklist/whitelist. But "master" has other meanings besides subjugation. In particular, proficiency or perfection. It was always my sense that git master branch was meant in the same sense as 'gold master' in recording and duplication, or 'master piece' in art and skilled labor. That said, branches come from trunks, not master or main, and it always felt like a bit of fuckery that git changed the subversion terminology that most of the eventual target audience was already familiar with. Changing to "main" is just confidently incorrect grandstanding. If you're gonna 'fix it' then bloody well fix it.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Git got "master" from closed source SCM Bitkeeper (the Linux kernel team never used Subversion) which did have a concept of "slave" branches as it used master/slave style replication. It's an unfortunate default closer in originating usage to the peripheral and replication terminology than the "pristine copy" terminology. Changing to "main" is often as much for not breaking a lot of people's muscle memory of "ma<tab>" in the CLI as any other reason to name the default/main branch that. "default" is a good name, too. If you want to use SVN's "trunk" go for it, that's a good name. At this point most git tools don't care what you call it.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    I keep going back and forth about whether I should respond to this, so I just upvoted you instead, but now I'm third-guessing myself. If that's actually the case about BitKeeper then 1) what the fuck, guys, and 2) I'll be thinking hard before I roll out that little rant again. Standing next to a bad actor, you have to gauge your behavior more carefully, because a reasonable response now has additional connotations. Laughing at a joke changes depending on who is telling the joke, for instance. The part I still feel fairly confident about though is that it feels like someone needs to tap the brakes. It feels like we're on the brink of going too far with this one. And I don't necessarily mean 'witch hunt' style, although that thought has occurred to me more than once. I mean more like diminishing returns and backlash. Maybe we should be wrapping this up and looking for a new problem to fix? Or at least asking the question. Perfect is the enemy of the good, and we haven't really achieved 'good'.
Joeri 4y ago
In technology master was always paired with slave, so yes, the word master in technology does indeed imply the meaning of slave owner. I do agree that getting that bent out of shape about the semantics of the names of inanimate objects like git branches is a bit weird, but then I am also talking from a position of privilege and have no lived experience of being treated differently because of my ancestry. The way I figure: if some people care that much that it is called “main” and not “master”, and I don’t really care either way, why not let them have that one?
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > if some people care that much that it is called “main” and not “master”, and I don’t really care either way, why not let them have that one Because (besides being an extremely stupid change for the most tenuous of reasons) this imposes a one-sided US-centric view of the world.
bastardoperator 4y ago
You seem upset? Github, Bitbucket, Gitlab have all switched to main, together. You know who isn't upset? The git community or the person that introduced the master concept or the people who know you can name your default branch to anything in under 30 seconds. There is nothing wrong with trying to use more inclusive language regardless of said reasons, and to be honest main is actually a better name anyways.

culi 4y ago

lol somehow I doubt companies are gaining much social clout for changing their default branch names...

arinlen 4y ago
> lol somehow I doubt companies are gaining much social clout for changing their default branch names... No one is expecting, or seeking, major wins by being mindful of the pervasive nature of non-inclusive language. But it's such a low-effort thing to do that there is actually no justification for avoiding doing the right thing.

bergenty 4y ago

iueotnmunto 4y ago

It takes a few minutes to switch. Maybe a bit more to rebind all CI scripts etc in a project as large as react. There are some things that I don't fully get (slavery was never big in my country). It takes a few minutes of effort to not be an asshole (real or perceived), so I just do it rather than thinking to much about whether or not the wider population should be offended or not.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
askonomm 4y ago
Yes, you're right, and I also do it. Doesn't mean however that I need to bury my head in the sand in topics such as this and never mention it.
- drunkpotato 4y ago
  You don't need to, but you might want to. It'll make life more pleasant and less angry.
Gigachad 4y ago
Not wanting to be seen as an asshole is how we end up with a never ending stream of bullshit because no one is brave enough to stand up. How much time has been wasted on feel good crap that serves only to give the illusion of caring. Big tech is happy to rename their git branches while doing nothing about the actual evil they commit.
hinkley 4y ago
We do not have a monorepo, and you can practically watch the gears turn when we mention any process change that involves changing the CI scripts. And this part may be projection, but I am nearly certain I see people subconsciously avoiding solutions that involve systemic CI changes. I got tired of making clerical errors or helping others fix theirs and went through and moved a bunch of configuration out of our CI configs into source control. So for my projects making changes is easier, but I still bump into mature projects that still have the old patterns because nobody even wanted to edit the configs one last time.
- iueotnmunto 4y ago
  I fully understand not changing for that reason and don't think anyone would think less of a justifiably difficult situation. But at the same time, what you described is probably indicative of deeper issues which should be considered technical debt, not because of political correctness but because there may be other inflexibility which inhibit productivity in the future.

Karawebnetwork 4y ago

This has nothing to do with left/right. This is a racial issue. People of color exist along the entire political spectrum.

askonomm 4y ago
jjtheblunt 4y ago
I'd say it's not even only a racial issue (but predominately was/is in the United States), but a socioeconomic one, with racial correlations. There are plenty of modern day indentured servitude exploitations afoot: the leaked internal Amazon documents about it being business policy to keep engineering hires for less than two years, while preserving managers who fire them, is an example that springs to mind.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Is it still the case that Amazon gives new hires a hiring bonus that has to be paid back if they don't stay at the company for a set amount of time? If you're also targeting fresh college grads... That's not exactly indentured servitude but it's too close to the Island of Pleasure (Pinocchio) for my comfort.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    not sure
dmitriid 4y ago
Switching master to main has literally nothing to do with the imaginary (in this particular case) racial issue. Master bedrooms and master records exist. People master their trades. And so on and so on. My understanding is that the absolute vast majority of people of color couldn't care less if git branch was called master or main.
- 4y ago

hinkley 4y ago

I'm on board for removing 'master-slave' terminology from peripherals and replication terminology. I'm on board for removing blacklist/whitelist. But "master" has other meanings besides subjugation. In particular, proficiency or perfection. It was always my sense that git master branch was meant in the same sense as 'gold master' in recording and duplication, or 'master piece' in art and skilled labor. That said, branches come from trunks, not master or main, and it always felt like a bit of fuckery that git changed the subversion terminology that most of the eventual target audience was already familiar with. Changing to "main" is just confidently incorrect grandstanding. If you're gonna 'fix it' then bloody well fix it.

WorldMaker 4y ago
Git got "master" from closed source SCM Bitkeeper (the Linux kernel team never used Subversion) which did have a concept of "slave" branches as it used master/slave style replication. It's an unfortunate default closer in originating usage to the peripheral and replication terminology than the "pristine copy" terminology. Changing to "main" is often as much for not breaking a lot of people's muscle memory of "ma<tab>" in the CLI as any other reason to name the default/main branch that. "default" is a good name, too. If you want to use SVN's "trunk" go for it, that's a good name. At this point most git tools don't care what you call it.
- hinkley 4y ago
  I keep going back and forth about whether I should respond to this, so I just upvoted you instead, but now I'm third-guessing myself. If that's actually the case about BitKeeper then 1) what the fuck, guys, and 2) I'll be thinking hard before I roll out that little rant again. Standing next to a bad actor, you have to gauge your behavior more carefully, because a reasonable response now has additional connotations. Laughing at a joke changes depending on who is telling the joke, for instance. The part I still feel fairly confident about though is that it feels like someone needs to tap the brakes. It feels like we're on the brink of going too far with this one. And I don't necessarily mean 'witch hunt' style, although that thought has occurred to me more than once. I mean more like diminishing returns and backlash. Maybe we should be wrapping this up and looking for a new problem to fix? Or at least asking the question. Perfect is the enemy of the good, and we haven't really achieved 'good'.

Joeri 4y ago

In technology master was always paired with slave, so yes, the word master in technology does indeed imply the meaning of slave owner. I do agree that getting that bent out of shape about the semantics of the names of inanimate objects like git branches is a bit weird, but then I am also talking from a position of privilege and have no lived experience of being treated differently because of my ancestry. The way I figure: if some people care that much that it is called “main” and not “master”, and I don’t really care either way, why not let them have that one?

dmitriid 4y ago
> if some people care that much that it is called “main” and not “master”, and I don’t really care either way, why not let them have that one Because (besides being an extremely stupid change for the most tenuous of reasons) this imposes a one-sided US-centric view of the world.

bastardoperator 4y ago

You seem upset? Github, Bitbucket, Gitlab have all switched to main, together. You know who isn't upset? The git community or the person that introduced the master concept or the people who know you can name your default branch to anything in under 30 seconds. There is nothing wrong with trying to use more inclusive language regardless of said reasons, and to be honest main is actually a better name anyways.