9 ms·
Git 3.0 will use main as the default branch
- theanonymousone 11mo agoWhile we are at it, can we please not have a human "master" in every Scrum team?
- blurbleblurble 11mo agoInterestingly enough, the times when I've had scrum masters at work were coincidentally the times when I felt the most disrespected at work. Not from the scrum masters though, from the people who the scrum masters protected myself and my teammates from, the higher ups. The scrum masters were cool. Even on a personal level the higher ups were more or less cool. But damn, organizational and market pressures can really beat down on people.
- socalgal2 11mo agoWhen is Linux going to rename “man” which according to my employer is a non-inclusive word and flagged in pull requests
- johnisgood 11mo agoYeah, or killing parents and children. sighs. People really need some context-awareness.
- gritten 11mo agoWhat...?
- patates 11mo agoI think they mean the kill/pkill. Not defending the silly chain of what-about arguments though.
- boxed 11mo agoIs it silly though? With enough linguistic archeology I bet you can make this entire comment I'm writing right now extremely problematic and offensive. The linguistic treadmill means exactly that older terms change meaning back in time. They also change meaning FORWARD in time, meaning your inoffensive terms today will almost certainly be offensive in the future. It's also the case that offense is language dependent, which is always funny when Americans hard ban certain words on chats and then Swedes can't use the Swedish word for "end" because it's spelled like a slur in English. Everyone needs to stop this nonsense.
- Y-bar 11mo ago> Swedes can't use the Swedish word for "end" because it's spelled like a slur "Ände" is a slur? (excuse my lack of transductional skills)
- optionalsquid 11mo agoThey probably mean "slut". The word has the same meaning in Danish, by the way
- johnisgood 11mo agoThe whole terminology in IT could be turned upside down because it can be quite offensive if people ignore the context, so it is not limited to processes. There are utilities like "man", "finger", etc. that could come across as offensive too, to some, with no context-awareness. Today it is "master" -> "main", tomorrow the whole IT terminology. There are many PRs on GitHub with regarding to these, by the way. ... also what about pins? Slave and master pins! Must be about slavery, right? No, it is not, not at all. In any case, who made the association of the git branch "master" to slavery? It is absurd. People need to take the context into account.
- dzhiurgis 11mo agoIMO for something to be offensive it has to have intention to be offensive. Otherwise it's misunderstanding.
- rich_sasha 11mo agoDon't forget killing orphans and zombies.
- johnisgood 11mo agoI will not forget master and slave pins either. :D
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- veeti 11mo agoHas the Linux community thought through the implications of using words like "containerization", when millions of slaves are still shipped around in shipping containers [1]? Docker is problematic technology to say the least. [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/1/26/slavery-in-libya-life-inside-a-container https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/1/26/slavery-in-libya-li...
- johnisgood 11mo agoYes, we ought to change "containerization" everywhere! In the Linux kernel, user-space, Docker, everywhere, only because people have difficulties with context-awareness! /s :D Please IT people, tell me that this thing is absurd.
- veeti 11mo agoFreeBSD also ought to consider the trauma "jails" as an analogy can cause to those unfairly incarcerated by the U.S. justice system.
- johnisgood 11mo agoNow we are getting somewhere! :D
- rurp 11mo agoWe better get rid of database constraints at the same time, since people were constrained on those same ships. I don't see how we can move forward as an industry until these grievous harms have been addressed.
- mock-possum 11mo agokillAllChildrenOf() is still my favorite method name
- ModernMech 11mo agoSide note, I had a professor who used to talk about "forking children" (processes) and I mean... the way she said it, with her accent... there are better words we could be using here to mean the same thing that wouldn't cause such absurdities to be uttered.
- johnisgood 11mo agoNah, I think the terminology is fine. Everyone in IT understands it. The people outside of IT have no business in our terminology.
- jayd16 11mo agoIt costs nothing and makes people happy so why be a jerk about it?
- mirekrusin 11mo agoIt’s non inclusive of people who think it’s stupid - their feelings are not taken under account.
- jauntywundrkind 11mo agoIf there was a case where that was more than a quantum of annoyance, where it actually was any kind of actual weight at all, maybe those incredibly small feelings might be interesting to weigh. But they're not. They're the smallest of feelings, weighing nothing. Making this change is the easiest lightest most obviously acceptable of wins.
- bakugo 11mo agoThis is such a weirdly patronizing comment. What exactly makes the feelings of the people who cried about the original name "bigger" than those of the people who don't like the change?
- jauntywundrkind 11mo agoMaster can conjure a horrible past. That's a real actual hazard. Avoiding it should be easy. It should be the easiest of easy things. Make the change and move on. Hack your reality, improve things, don't make more of a glaring ugly mess of things than need be. It costs so so little to do a small good act. You wouldn't name your primary branch holocaust or tyrant or oppressor or doommaker or worldruiner or hates[ethnicity]. But computing used master/slave extensively for decades (ex: I2C, IDE protocols). Folks arguing that it hurts their feelings to not have those names wouldn't be given any weight. These are alligator tears. No one has made a case that "main" is a bad name. Because this isn't a real case. It's perfectly clear, no lesser a name in any way. More broadly, when assessing positive liberty (freedom to do something) versus negative liberty (freedom from being dogged), we shouldn't favor positive liberty to make broadly harmful defaults that can hurt people and/or bring misery over negative liberty not have a world a rare couple antagonists insist on driving down in stature. This feels to me like people either dragging their feet & bringing resistance, or, on many many cases, people actively obstructing, making an easy simple improvement much much more fraught & hard. And many of those people I feel like do it because they know it is a good change, and they actively seek to keep the world worse. I have little and descendingly less pity for any. If someone wants to build a case for why their feelings here that we shouldn't do this have weight, I'm all ears. And I'll spend some time to read more comments to see what I see. But the person I replied to made zero case for why they felt their emotional injury (as they begged for tolerance of intolerance), yet felt that their case should carry as much or more weight, where-as master/slave usage in computing are words which associates with slavery. Which is the ultimate positive liberty vs negative liberty case, which reflects the matter here: the negative liberty to not be enslaved outweighs any positive liberty to enslave. You're free to think it's stupid!! That fact though just doesn't matter very much in this case. It doesn't actually really affect you. You can adapt, with barely more than zero cost. It's stupid maybe perhaps possibly!! But of no cost. And that's the weight of your feelings here: it's not actually of any consequence to you, you are claiming stake in a matter without any basis. You're free to feel however you like in this world, but whether those emotions actually match/reflect the circumstances that spring them matters. Generally I think most people kind of agree that it sucks that master/slave (ex: i2c, IDE protocols) nomenclature was chosen & used in computing, and calling the shift away stupid-in my view- should be taken as the smallest imaginable quantum of protest, the smallest tears imaginable. Stop stopping the world, let time progress forward, don't trap us in your negative energy forever.
- stephen_g 11mo agoGit (and computer science) shouldn’t use ‘hash’ either since it’s a drug reference.
- 7bit 11mo agoSo a hashtable is basically the drug dealers menu?
- croon 11mo agoCuriously "man" is etymologically gender neutral, where wo/wif(man) denoted the female prefix for man, and the male dropped what would otherwise be were(man), seen in for example werewolf, which is gendered.
- throw-the-towel 11mo agoSo a female werewolf would be a wowulf then? Cool!
- croon 11mo agoThere is discussion on whether wer/e usage in werewolf has further/other roots, but assuming consensus landing on my GP, then yes!
- nacozarina 11mo agowodude
- binary132 11mo agoso you’re saying a woman is just a female man? that’s crazy, dude…
- SAI_Peregrinus 11mo agoYes, "man" is etymologically a person, "woman" is a female person, and "wereman" is a male person. Over time "were" got dropped, but "wo" got kept, so "man" is either a gender-neutral person or a male person, distinguished based on context. E.g. "mankind" is gender-neutral.
- curtisblaine 11mo agoDon't give them ideas
- gjvc 11mo ago"trunk" would have at least matched the notion of "branches"
- ogogmad 11mo agoWhat about "boot", to be more international?
- onion2k 11mo agotrunk as in tree, not car. Cars don't have branches.
- theshrike79 11mo agoTo go with the way the world is going, maybe "boot" and "licks" instead of "trunk" and "branches"? =)
- mirekrusin 11mo agooh, don't worry, somebody will be offended by this as well - "trunk" as a sexual slang term refers to a woman's buttocks.
- matheusmoreira 11mo agoHuh. I always visualized "trunk" as some kind of chest where all the code was stored. Somehow it never occurred to me to think about trees. What a weird feeling.
- gjvc 11mo agoi hope you don't get your source code tree (on disk) confused with the tree of branches in the repository then...
- porridgeraisin 11mo agoInteresting perspective
- webdevver 11mo ago
- testdelacc1 11mo agoI’m disappointed that this headline will lead to more clicks. This is your reminder that in git the branch name is just a pointer to a commit. Renaming that pointer is relatively seamless on GitHub (https://github.com/github/renaming?tab=readme-ov-file#rename-existing https://github.com/github/renaming?tab=readme-ov-file#rename...). Also, git 3.0 isn’t forcing this change on existing repos, just new ones that no automation depends on. And if you really like the old name that’s always an option for your repos. Remember, it’s just a pointer. The other git 3.0 changes are more consequential and worthy of discussion - changing from SHA-1 to SHA-256 for greater security and performance, changing the storage format for performance and introducing Rust.
- sam_lowry_ 11mo ago> changing from SHA-1 to SHA-256 for greater security Linus has a different view, he referred to the SHA-256 migration as "pointless churn": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCr_gb8rdEI?t=11m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCr_gb8rdEI?t=11m SHA-1 is not broken enough to be a serious issue for git. The migration to SHA-256 has been forced by on git by clueless morons, and it is, in this very special way, similar to the master-main rename.
- adastra22 11mo agoOnly if you don't have any pdf files in your repo.
- PikachuEXE 11mo agoAlso wonders if SHA-384 or SHA-256 would be more "future proofing" or whatever the points the supporters making
- 1718627440 11mo agoWill Git produce repos with both SHA1 and SHA256 commits, or is this a per repo thing?
- sam_lowry_ 11mo ago
- TrappedInCorner 11mo agoYet again the whining twitter-people get another win.
- ixaxaar 11mo agoFrom a third-world perspective, it feels like American politics being injected into the developer domain because of some previous biases that Americans had. Which is sad for a community that claims to be global.
- bigstrat2003 11mo agoLots of Americans don't support this either. Of course, that doesn't actually matter to the people who have pushed this change through. They think that it's a righteous change, so it doesn't matter whom it annoys.
- padjo 11mo agoLots of non Americans support the change too. Master was a terrible default name, switching it to a better name that’s also more inclusive language was a good idea. Where American politics infected things was the the reactionary response of people who are vehemently opposed to any attempt to fix problems that don’t directly effect them.
- TrappedInCorner 11mo agoThis whole 'master branch' outrage doesn't even make sense. Should saying things like: "I've mastered computer programming." also be an offense? We absolutely should deny and disregard these nonsensical demands _by principle_. What was even the actual case made by people who wanted this? And don't tell me "well it's not a big deal, just accept it don't whine about something so small", because that won't fly, or shouldn't at least.
- padjo 11mo ago[flagged]
- 000ooo000 11mo agoHow did Scrum Master escape this treatment?
- krzyk 11mo agoWhitespace?
- ogogmad 11mo ago"Sprint". "Bus factor"?
- onion2k 11mo agoWe didn't need for another argument against Scrum, but that's a very compelling one.
- rich_sasha 11mo agoYou're right. I'll call it Scrum Main now.
- em-bee 11mo agoi suggest scrum whip (as in party whip, has a similar role and function)
- rpigab 11mo agoDoes he have a MSc?
- simonw 11mo agoBecause the term Scrum Master wasn't derived from master/slave. Git's concept of a master branch was borrowed from BitKeeper which used master/slave terminology. https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/H...
- ret2plt 11mo agoEh, that's some interesting historical trivia, but I don't see how that matters tbh. If everybody is fine with the word because they (quite reasonably) assume it was inspired by master record or something similar, and you bring up some 25 year old history (20 years when the debate got started) about not even git but a precursor, does that really help with anything? I am sure there are other innocuous seeming words that have a dark etymology, should we go search for them so we can update the language?
- moomin 11mo agoHonest to God not something I care about but: this is pretty much the nail in the coffin for “master”. I do know some people _did_ care about the name. Sometimes surprisingly senior people who never supported a tech upgrade want the name changed. In any event, it’s done, “main” won, it’s fine, let’s move on.
- matt-attack 11mo agoMaybe they resisted because it was completely ridiculous waste of engineering resources all over the country and for absolutely no tangible reason other than white people trying to feel better about themselves. I work in the field of film mastering (with countless product names with the word “master” in it) and luckily no one got the ridiculous idea in their head that we need to change this lingo. Show me a single person who has a valid reason for me not calling my branch “master” or my bedroom “the master”. I honestly think this sort of ridiculing word policing is why we lost this last damned election. And if you’re somehow proud that you’ve renamed your git branches, you’re very likely a contributor to that lost election.
- dzhiurgis 11mo agoMakes sense when you release 3.0 and basically allowed to introduce breaking changes. In tech field there's lots of people living on the very fringes of society, hidden away behind keyboard.
- atoav 11mo agoI actually worked in film audio engineering and Master is not the universally used term and hasn't been used uniformly throughout history. I have an analog Mackie mixer from the 2000s with "Main" as the name of the Main Bus that was designed before the whole debate took part. As far as software goes, things are similar. The process of "Mastering" is an exception. As far as git branches go, I am fine with main. It has two advantages over master aside from any culturual questions: 1. main is more self-explanatory for beginners who don't know how "master" was/is used in tech. 2. it is shorter. While two letters don't make a huge difference, that is still a subtile advantage. Whether these two points alone are enough to justify the needed work (which is probably not a lot to be honest), IDK.
- fzeroracer 11mo agoSeeing some of the complaints around this feels like people are somehow still stuck in 2020 instead of 2025. People need to do a fresh pull down from main and update their arguments. Frankly I don't really care either way, main is shorter and conveys the same meaning so by my metrics it's better. You can override the default to be whatever you want.
- nirui 11mo agoDon't know why people here got triggered by DEI, but the "master" naming is just bad, "main" is actually a better and more generic description. The word "master" means someone/thing that has the capability of controlling things, like "Mastered", "Master Degree" etc. But in most Git contexts, "master" is just "one of the breach that we hand picked to put our finest results in", that's not mastering anything, it just means "if you know what's best for you (or not), just use this one". Another similar wording is in IDE hard drives. Remember the fun time where you can to setup jumpers before your secondary IDE hard drive would work? Yeah that secondary drive is called "slave". I'm still confused why the first drive must be called "master" since I never see it whipping any other drives to make them work harder or really doing anything that's remotely controlling. The computer guys in the old times really have a weird taste in naming things.
- Y-bar 11mo agoWell said. I think the slavery connotations in Git are not a big deal. But I have always disliked the word "master" because it never seemed well-suited for what role it played in the version control sphere. Labels like "main" or "primary" always seemed like better words to me, so I am glad that this change was made.
- realityking 11mo agoInteresting thought process. I always liked the “master” branch to a “master recording” since most branches are created off master.
- stephen_g 11mo agoThis was always the sense I thought of too
- Ferret7446 11mo agoYou betray your own ignorance. Master has been used historically to refer to the "final" or "canonical" copy. For example, you make copies of a CD based on the master. Creating that master copy is called mastering. The word "master" stems from Latin, meaning "great" or "teacher". Just as teachers pass on knowledge to students, data is copied from the master. Any slavery related connotations is insanely recent, and arguably manufactured specifically for the purpose of linguistic censorship. Historically, slave owners were referred to as... owners.
- randyrand 11mo agoWhen we have sentient robots running around doing our bidding, I wonder what we'll call them.
- aitchnyu 11mo agoWe already call them slaves, but with a Czech loanword.
- almosthere 11mo agoAll the woke stuff was so annoying past 5 years. I don't remember the company name but it was one of those feature flag toggle companies. For a year straight they communicated this change they were doing, basically replacing blacklist and whitelist with more PC terms. Someone at the company decided to not only make it a recommended change, but that the old usage would BREAK the app. They couldn't handle the word blacklist in the codebase so much that they were willing to punish their users. It felt like I was getting an email from them every 5 days for a year. That all being said - main is shorter than master and I would say most of us here, probably 95%, are "used to it" and it would actually be annoying to go back to master.
- OCTAGRAM 11mo agoWe used to default
- Traubenfuchs 11mo agoTurns out people really, really, REALLY don't like to be forced to change their decades old thinking, vocabulary and definitions of words when they feel its either pointless busy work, propagation of an ideology they do not support or a straight up attempt at mind control.
- TrappedInCorner 11mo ago[flagged]
- curtisblaine 11mo agoThey e-mail your HR lady if you say anything against them.
- StopDisinfo910 11mo agoYou could have stopped at average people don't like to change. It being justified or not as very little impact on the reception. It applies equally to this than to systemd, wayland or Rust - but Rust is now trendy so people will bandwagon in their appreciation to look cool and in - to quote other topics regularly discussed on HN. I fear that the most interesting thing about how these changes are received by the HN community is what it says about the HN community itself.
- the_absurdist 11mo agoThey could have expressed themselves in a way that aligns with your sensibilities, but they exercised their freedom of expression. I personally found that additional detail to be very valuable, because it conveyed disdain without triggering justification for people like you to censor the comment completely.
- StopDisinfo910 11mo agoI have no interest in censoring the comment (what?). That’s nearly as far fetched as people calling renaming branches brain washing and propaganda. It’s a rhetorical flourish pointing that in my opinion most people here are actually change averse, a trend which I personally notice more and more here. I have no sensibilities. I am neither American nor interested in American politics. I am however deeply convinced that people having strong opinions about the names of branches have issues. An opinion I apply equally to people strongly advocating for the change and to people strongly against the change.
- kv0 11mo agoI don't get it how you can be so emotional for yet another branch name. Especially as this change was announced 5yrs ago. If this blocks you from "just want to do real work" maybe overthink your setup and adjust your pipelines?
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 11mo agoWasn't it already?
- SdGCq66N 11mo ago[dead]
- yunruse 11mo agoI prefer to default to `develop` and then eventually branch out to `release`: that way my branch names are pretty explicit. It seemed silly to me to start with a "central" branch, no matter the wording, because that's not actually how Git works (and it's rather uninformative). For... some in the comment section, please recall the HN guideline: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- kiicia 11mo agoI remember when default branch was simply `trunk`, but maybe that was in SVN not git… trunk goes well with branches, maybe git should stick (heh) to it
- pjbk 11mo agoWhich for some of us, Spanish speakers, was on occasion amusing or lewd, depending on the context and culture. The Spanish equivalent is 'tronco' which is very similar and it is slang for a couple of things.
- orphea 11mo agoIt's not silly at all, there are multiple ways how you can version your changes in git.
- frizlab 11mo agoI am also leaning towards this, especially for active repository where a magic or master branch does not mean anything
- OCTAGRAM 11mo agoMercurial uses "default" as the default branch since the inception
- zoobab 11mo agoThey should better fix bigger problems like real "decentralization" like using p2p protocols by default. Their current state of "decentralization" is "the developer might still have a copy of the repo on his laptop".
- OCTAGRAM 11mo agoYeah. Advanced Direct Connect p2p is using TIGER Tree Hash. Gnutella2 p2p is using TIGER Tree Hash. There is BitTorrent format extension to include per-file TTH, implemented by EAD TorrentBuild. For best performance we should also get rid of pointless per-block hashes in torrent files. TTH is universal for p2p, and yet developers choose another hashes, making their tools not ready for p2p. My lovely Mercurial is unfortunately also not ready for p2p
- jmclnx 11mo ago>More formally integrating Rust into Git’s own build process What does this mean, to compile git v3 I will need Rust ? As for 'main' I always used that, I do not know how that happened since I use git the say way I used RCS ages ago.
- steveklabnik 11mo agoYes, you will need Rust to compile git v3 from source.
- Artoooooor 11mo agoSo now instead of game remasters we will get game remains?
- ilyin 11mo agoThe most intolerant wins again. I'll be keeping “master”, than you very much.
- lunias 11mo agoAt the end of the day, all I really care about is consistency. It's annoying to switch between projects which use different branch names to describe the same thing. That being said, this is a dumb reason to introduce inconsistency.
- LecroJS 11mo agoI had this problem too until I forced myself to use the `gcm` alias from oh-my-zsh’s Git plugin. IIRC it checks out to master if it exists, else main. It has almost entirely removed this distinction from my life.
- weebull 11mo agoI hope you never come across a repo that has an old out-of-date `master` branch, because they moved to using `main` in a bad way.
- Sander_Marechal 11mo agoNo problem. The parent had it the wrong way around. OMZ will use main if it exists, master otherwise. So a bad move still works!
- LecroJS 11mo agoThanks that’s good to know
- jcarrano 11mo agoWith master gone, it's time to get rid of the man-pages, which were invented to mansplain commands by bearded men in the 70s.
- ndsipa_pomu 11mo agoI eagerly await that change. However, "man" originally means "people" as in "mankind", or "human". It's only recently (c 1400) that it replaced "wer" ("wif" being the feminine noun) as meaning males (or mid 20th century for becoming an exclamation).
- 1718627440 11mo agoIn addition, this is entirely pointless, because man is short for manual, which comes from manus, the hand, because it is something, that you should keep at hand.
- semolino 11mo agoBeen using 'sensei' as my default branch name for a couple years now. I get to feel like a ninja when I commit, the conceptual meaning is close to that of the previous term, and there's no historical baggage related to the US. Win-win-win?
- weebull 11mo agoThat just highlights that the way people are interpreting the word `master` is wrong. You've named your most important branch "teacher".
- semolino 11mo agoIsn't master ("ruler, teacher, etc.") upstream of master ("definitive version"), though, etomologically-speaking? I do see what you're saying, though, and will admit to some cheekiness on my end.
- diroussel 11mo agoIf you try and push you sensei, before you know it you'll be doing jujitsu.
- the_absurdist 11mo agoCowardly acquiescence to any political ideology is disgraceful, and that's exactly what this was.
- archagon 11mo agoOr maybe it’s just people trying to be kind. Not everything is a fucking battle.
- OutOfHere 11mo agoPersonally I think only branch that's minimally needed is "dev", with tags for releases. "master" or "main" should just be a pointer to the latest non-hotfix tag.
- lavp 11mo agoI feel very uncomfortable with Chess players holding 'Grandmaster' titles. Would much prefer 'Grandmain'.
- Voultapher 11mo agoSomewhat disheartening to see all the arguments here saying it doesn't matter how we name stuff. Lived language creates reality. There are groups of black people that complained about the terminology, repeatedly [1]. So isn't it arrogant as a white dude to say, this thing hurts you, and we could easily change it, but fuck you we won't do it because we have always done it that other way? Some easy no effort replacements: - master-slave -> leader-follower - blacklist -> denylist - whitelist -> acceptlist [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_(technology)#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_(technolo...
- armitron 11mo agoThis argument isn't just absurd but push it to its logical extreme, and you're inviting brutal thought policing and full-blown totalitarianism. I stick with "master" in my Git repos partly because it's an excellent filter: it lets me steer well away from anyone who pitches a fit over the word.
- Voultapher 11mo agoAh yes, the if we change something that would mean we would have to change everything and that would be absurd, so we can't change anything ever argument. Classic.
- penguin_booze 11mo agoSo, 'master' was the default branch name. Why is the default changed in 3.0? Is it because of the allusion to slavery in the United States? Even if so, what does a Git branch name has to do with that country's history? Did Git used its branch name to enslave people? When a user does 'git checkout master', are more people getting enslaved - some kind of butterfly effect? Does it need to be said that if the US had or has a problem, it's they alone who need to deal with it? Since when did the rest of world took upon itself to "solve" their problem? Did we all get green card or something? I don't feel like this will stop here. What's the next word some people in some other country decided to declare offensive? Shame.
- WorldMaker 11mo ago> Did Git used its branch name to enslave people? Git took the branch name from Bitkeeper which did have "slave" branches and used a "master/slave" analogy. Git didn't also inherit the "slave branch" concept in that same way, but it did have that heritage accidentally imported when git lazily reused that branch name. > Does it need to be said that if the US had or has a problem, it's they alone who need to deal with it? Slavery/indentured servitude is a worldwide problem that still exists today in countries that are not the US. Even if you think this is an over-correction in relationship to the historic US Slave Trade specifically, that was a multinational effort involving the British Empire, the Dutch Empire, and many other Former Colonies beyond just the US' involvement. The US took advantage of the trade, but it neither invented the trade nor was the lone slave owning country involved in that trade, nor was it the last country in that trading group to end slavery trading in practice even if it was one of the last ones on paper.
- remram 11mo agoI'm not trying to argue against it, I think "slave" branches make no sense anyway, but to GP's point BitKeeper didn't enslave anybody, just used the word. If we believe we should remove allusions to negative things why are we ok with "kill", "orphan", "evict", "bash", "cut", "isolate" etc? What is special about that terrible concept that we should stop using the word even when not applied to people at all?
- punkbit 11mo agoAny project repository where I'm the original author, the default branch is the "develop" branch. Let's move on!
- perrygeo 11mo agoGood. "master" implies a master/slave architecture which is straight-up technically wrong - and directly opposite git's true design! You couldn't pick a worse default. Even if it weren't tinged with racist colonial overtones, there is reason to change it for correctness alone.
- _imnothere 11mo agoThis is plain stupidity over some SJWs pointless whining, sad to see people being such braindead to support bullshit like this.
- gullevek 11mo agoWho gives a shit. Seriously. You can set your preferred name in the configs. And I have this since forever because I do not want to have a sudden name change. This will change will not impact anyone. But again we get this "oh this is so horrible". Nobody cares. Nobody forces anyone to change anything