• ikt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    821 month ago

    reverting main back to master

        • qaz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          241 month ago

          It was kind of pointless, but at least it made software work with custom default branches.

        • @chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          231 month ago

          Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.

          • @Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            91 month ago

            In alignment with this, we should not replace the master branch with the main branch, we should replace it with the gold branch.

            Every time a PR gets approval and it’s time to merge, I could declare that the code has “gone gold” and I am not doing that right now!

              • @vulpivia@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                11 month ago

                Well, he doesn’t seem so sure about it himself. From the same link:

                (But as noted in a separate thread, it is possible it stems from bitkeeper’s master/slave terminology. I hoped to do some historical research but health emergency in my family delayed that.)

                • He also said:

                  the impression words form in the reader is more important than their intent

                  He didn’t intend for the master/slave connotation. He intended for the recording master connotation. Either way, he regrets using the word master and he’s supportive of the change.

        • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 month ago

          But why even? There’s no risk to changing it and some risk to keeping it. That’s the reason for the push to change it. Keeping something just because it’s tradition isn’t a good idea outside ceremonies.

          • @weker01@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            10
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            There is definitely a risk in changing it. Many automation systems that assume there is a master branch needed to be changed. Something that’s trivial yes but changing a perfectly running system is always a potential risk.

            Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.

            • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              -11 month ago

              If they can’t change what’s essentially a variable name without issues then should they be doing the job?

              • @MadhuGururajan@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 month ago

                pray tell me how would you change the name in every script of an automation system that refers to master? Remember, you have to justify the time and cost to your manager or director!

          • I don’t accept that because everyone’s doing it or “group-think” are valid excuses do jump on a trend. Things like this maybe don’t seem like a big deal for you but for those that hate this culture it’s just one more example of a dumb change being shoved down their throats. This could also be the straw that breaks the camels back.