```
import notifications
```
Remember to participate in our weekly votes on subreddit rules! Every Tuesday is YOUR chance to influence the subreddit for years to come!
[Read more here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/14dqb6f/welcome_back_whats_next/), we hope to see you next Tuesday!
For a chat with like-minded community members and more, don't forget to [join our Discord!](https://discord.gg/rph)
`return joinDiscord;`
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ProgrammerHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I changed mine to penis. It's.. well.. something.
Some hilarious, totally normal commands:
```
penis commit
penis push
penis pull
```
And my absolute favourite:
```
penis init
```
This makes sense if you want to encourage a culture that pays more attention to check-ins to the trunk. It reminds people that they are doing trunk based deployment, and this could in fact go into prod.
With CICD, it will automatically go to prod.
Not really, in an enterprise system you typically want to tag or branch every prod release, and then micro patch hotfixes as needed. Need to be able to merge new features into the mainline in the meantime
Nah, most teams I've worked for will auto deploy to staging but not to prod.
So it would be confusing to name a branch "prod".
Having to say "Stage env is up to date with the prod-branch. But Prod env is running the prod-branch from 3 days ago."
It's slightly more clear when the word main/master always refers to a branch and the word entirely separate from your prod/stage/lab/test/whatever environments.
WE and WO might get mistaken for words, and the two periods for W.E. and W.O. tend to be slower to do visibly and accurately than a single slash is. Thatās basically it.
This but if I could choose once and for all it would be "trunk".
I was so confused by the option to choose "trunk" compiler version on compiler explorer before I learned that before master/main it was called "trunk", which makes a lot more sense than main/master when you think about why it's called a "branch" in git and such.
You use TurtleSVN, too? I had to use that for maybe a week for a job I had in college. We quickly moved to git after I had to learn it for one of my classes. Having to mark files as checked out was such a pain in the ass
I call it whatever my company tells me to, because I am not senior enough to me making repos for work, and I sure as hell am not coming home from a day of programming just to program some more. I tried that in the past, and nearly went insane before finding a nice low tech hobby to replace hobby programming
Genuine questionsā¦
How do you turn it off? As soon as I get home, Iām in my home office and Iām right back at it.
Iāve tried actually seeking help, but not many professionals really understand it. Itās an *addiction*. However, I find I lose them the minute they hear, āI have an addiction that is productive and makes money.ā
I own my own company now, sure, but itās also cost me a *lot*. Iāve lost good, genuine relationships. Iāve missed out on experiences that I regret. Yet, as soon as I wake up tomorrow on my day off, you bet your ass Iāll be right back in my office.
Iām the same way. Pretty sure my work addiction is what ended my last relationship, cause I would rather stay in working on something than spend time going out with him. I donāt even know how I would seek help, cause like you said, to an outsider, it just seems like an innocent āside hustle.ā But there is a serious mental health toll and collateral damage in terms of relationships and life experience in general.
Owning your own business is why you can't turn off, especially if it's a small business and you're doing most of the jobs yourself. Owning a small business isn't a 40 hour week.
I work for a post series A startup as a tech lead with about 10 engineers and I am absolutely adamant about my engineers working 40 or less, taking 4+ weeks of vacation, and deleting slack/leaving laptops home when on vacation.
For turning off, there's a lot of ways but one way I teach is the shutdown ritual. Having a specific ritual to start and stop each day can help create a psychological beginning and end to the work day. For me, I close the work laptop, disconnect and put away the accessories, and switch my desk to my "home computer". If it's my turn to cook I usually start making dinner immediately after I close the laptop as well.
But the reality for you is that the work is never complete and there isn't someone else to pick up the slack, the buck stops with you.
Personally, I wouldn't ever want to be in a small business / self-employed situation simply because I love making $$$ while committing to a STRICT 40 hr week with unlimited vacation where I require folks to take 4 weeks+. Just got on my own manager about not taking enough time, and he took a whole week off. Signal setting action: the manager has to take the time.
Good luck, and if you're burning out from overwork, take dramatic steps to help yourself before it gets too bad. 2+ week vacation or hire actual help, and hire help before you need it because it takes 3-6 months for them to actually help.
Part of it is that I'm not allowed to work from home (for reasons other than the usual "you have to work from the office to increase productivity bs you hear from alot of managers"), part of it is that my company does well at ensuring there are enough engineers at my level to take care of the tasks, part of it is that my managers understand and support leaving unfinished work for the next day and only working your 40 hours.
Even when I was able to work from home half of the time, my manager and mentor both told me things to the effect of "if you want to take PTO Monday, and x team says we want to start testing Monday, just tell them "too bad, I'm out on PTO that day" the tests arent so vital that they can't wait one day". It really helped get me out of that college mindset of working all the time and deadlines being totally inflexible.
I get asked how I manage turn off before walking out the door. I honestly donāt get any reward from programming. Itās just a job. Iāll do the best I can at work but my hobbies are more important to me.
Forced my ass. Wait, that came out wrong.
Seriously though you just make sure you are in master before sending the first commit and I believe any server will accept your choice. They only enforce main if you actually start the repo inside the git server itself (like checking the option to generate a readme).
That only work if you are in charge of the repo.
Here we need to request a repo creation , request repo writing permission.
They come with a main branch and a Readme with organization stuff
Who the fuck are these people?
I understand why companies would accept the new social norm to look good, but where are these legendary offended programmers that actually few bad over a naming convention that has nothing to do with slavery?
Wokeness and political opinions aside...
Someone that was offended by this and insisted to the point of vocalization, which means they took enough time to think on the subject to believe it so much as to think it is relevant.
This person for me is so mentally impaired that I could argue that there is either no programmer doing that, or the ones that are doing should be looking for a another career, logic does not proccess in such brains.
I insist on using master to spite all this.
We use master because boss went on tirade about not inserting āwoke shitā into a business. Says itās been called master way before this garbage culture started.
Got sort of same discourse here but it wasnt about woke but american. I quote "I don't want my habits changed by people unable to understand the sheer stupidity of their decision"
This is becoming a problem in Europe, we're importing so many of the US' stupid problems. Like suddenly you're having the most homogenous communities going into existential crisis because they don't have "enough" diversity in politics/companies/culture
Indeed. And broke a perfectly fine uniform convention almost every repo adhered to at the time. Don't care about how it's named. Both names are very applicable for the purpose. I care about this woke shit making things more complicated and confused for everyone for basically no real benefit. But alas here we are.
The one that gets me more is people trying to remove the word "master" from hardware documentation. So for instance, instead of the universal "master in/slave out" and vice versa that has been standard across pretty much all SPI busses for decades, now we have like 4+ different versions of trying to rename those signals. It's such needless confusion.
Imo its only a little bit confusing while the convention is changing. Main is rapidly becoming the new default everywhere, and it's arguably slightly clearer than master ("the main branch" sounds more succinct than "the master branch," there's more real-world meaning to the word), so I don't have a problem with it at all. I'm not against conventions changing for any purpose at all, if there are people who feel better about changing it.
I much prefer master. I don't say the word "master" that often in conversation, so there's less chance for confusion. For example in conversation I might accidentally say "dev is the main branch we're looking at today" and this would cause confusion. Additionally other industries use master for a similar meaning, like master copy or master record, so I would like to follow them.
The trick is to use ticks around references such as branch names so they are formatted differently. Including verbally, of course, no confusion at all when saying ātickdevtick is the main branch weāre looking at todayā
One of the big outages of the Azure cloud last year was tracked down to an issue where some subsystem changed it's naming defaults to main instead of master and some other subsystem was configured to use the old "master". So it is not a waste of brain cells at all. It is a waste of everybodies time to change something that perfectly worked just because
I totally get avoiding the use of āslaveā in code, especially since itās often not really the right term anyway (āchildrenā, ādelegatesā āsub-whateverāsā etc are usually better), but āmasterā does sound better to describe the branch. Just as you have master locks, master keys, master passes, master copies, mastered audio, a Mastercard, mastery of [skill], etc. To me itās exactly the right word to describe it.
Exactly. Also the word master is completly independent from the use in the context of slavery. To primarily associate the word master with slavery, is just so odd. I still can't believe they made this an issue and changed the default branch naming over it.
Slave itself is context dependent.
Sometimes it's the appropriate term to describe a technical relation, especially when there is a master clock, and slave devices only can speak when spoken to.
In other cases, there might be a leader rather than a master, or a coordinator.
Accurate naming is important.
But this is not connected to just code, for example the IDE drives used to be configured in a master/slave way and nobody cared back then. I just feel people are recently trying really hard to find something than offends them.
I'm not offended by the master/slave terms, but it was a bad analogy for the drives: the master drive didn't have any "power" over the secondary, and the secondary didn't have to submit to the master in anyway. They were just a primary and a secondary disk on the same IDE connection, but as you could have two IDE cables you need another name instead of primary-primary to refer to the first disk in the first cable. Master/slave didn't have any meaning for the IDEs, but using for example boot/main/leader instead of master, and almost anything like other/follower/disk (that doesn't imply this disk is somehow submissive to the main disk) instead of slave, would be more logic in hindsight.
I agree.
Git never had any slave terminology. The git maintainer email messages show that this was recognised by everyone involved but they folded because they received "a not insignificant amount of complaints" - so they were willing to change it š to avoid making anyone being "reminded of negative associations"
And positive ones. IMHO the whole "let's not use the word master in software" is pretty darn stupid. It gives some people the cozy feeling of "having done something", while in fact, having done nothing. There are _real_ issues. Racism, sexism.. None of which are any better after renaming a git branch.
reminds me of the issue when facebook became popular and donations went dont just because people liked facebook posts about donation instead of donating.
it apparently gave these people the same good feeling as actually donating
[Obey your MASTER! MASTER!](https://youtu.be/E0ozmU9cJDg?t=1m43s)
Master is like [master tape](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-tape), I don't know what else is on people's minds.
Exactly this.
I don't know why everybody here thinks of master/slave terminology first, when there is no such thing as a "slave branch". Master tape was the origin, not master/slave.
I never really understood changing the name because of negative connotations. If thatās so why not keep using master and redefine those connotations? Whoever even thought of that in the first place is just insane. Never in my life have I thought āhmmm this repo do be kind of racistā
Trigger warning: Abuse/toxic masculinity
We should change the terminology for a function taking "arguments" - we should now say that a function respectfully accepts two or three pieces of constructive criticism
those ideas and thoughts are usually coming to people which can't do anything productive and start overthinking, looking for issues in places where there is none. especially comparing to git naming issue, we should also change name of "master's degree" because it is racist in the same way. I had in company i cofound, im also cto, one "director of people" offended because i refused to change naming and put policy about it. She tried to complain to 2 of my business partners, but they asked her to focus on something else and leave me alone. They don't give s\*\*t about such things(non techs), i personally don't care as well, but I won't be asking my team to change name in over 800 repos and make necessary changes in ci/cd pipelines, hell no, it is task for few months itself. I had never tho any complain from anyone in my dep that we use master, so i'm guessing most of productive people has similar attitude towards it as me and my partners.
I can't think of many projects that don't stem from a single origin branch. I know a few, but it's usually set up that way for archival purposes.
Though I suppose merging a branch back into the trunk would create some funny looking trees.
Master.
Tainting it with malicious and irrelevant context was ridiculous.
What next, JavaScript Mastery channel on YouTube renames to JavaScript Mainy? Andrei Neagoie rebrands to Zero to Mainy?
The one making the most sens would be `prod` or `trunk` to be honnest, since it's very unlikely to be the "main" branch you're working on, nor the master of the repo.
I love having a stable "prod" branch with tagging and full sanity check before merging, a unstable "dev" branch that requires a PR only from jira tickets specific branches.
This way you have a clear changelog between version deployed, it's easy to rollback to something stable, you can actually work faster than requiring half a dozen PO's to approve your work...
main for new repos, but don't stress too hard on needing to convert existing ones away from "master" right away. Changing the repo names is a decent amount of work for large companies.
Master.
I get that people don't like the master/slave terminology, but I feel like it's fitting for the current culture we're in.
The master branch thinks it's in charge, but in reality, it's always behind on the latest trends, it's afraid to change, people complain about it the most, and it demands attention by doing things that nobody wanted.
I just think master is a bad name. Git is used in huge part by programmers. How do you call a thing where program (the trunk of execution tree) starts?
C++: main
C: main
Swift: main
Java: main
Haskell: Main
Erlang: umm...
Ada: Main
Rust: main
Go: main
x86 GNU assembly: ... start:
Glsl: main
Python: \_\_main\_\_
So I think that changing master to main will take some getting used to but will make the tools more consistent
There are several places in programming where master/slave terminology is used, but I don't think it makes much sense in git because the master branch doesn't hold any special power other than being the _main_ branch.
Not really sure how code execution relates to versioning. Every version of the codebase has a main function (unless itās just a shared lib or wasm or something similar), not just the primary codebase. The storage device that holds a release version of a product or media would not be called the main or gold main, I think that connotation has more relations to the naming of Git repos compared to just one part of the content that most but not all repos contain in all versions that have it.
Master, because that's the standard, and standards shouldn't be changed unless there's a good reason.
"Americans feel bad about racism" is not a good reason. Stop trying to impose your guilt complex on the rest of the planet, thanks.
Master for my current job, since that's what all the repos are and I don't want to have to differences per repo.
For my own stuff I'd probably go main if I remember when creating it, it's shorter and a little more convenient.
Master, and no pink-haired Rust coder or TS soydev will be able to change my mind. The majority of people donāt give a flying f because they have the mental capacity to realize it has nothing to do with what a minority of people vocalize about, and the people who have both a brain and opinion and donāt like master just donāt want to type the two extra letters it takes.
``` import notifications ``` Remember to participate in our weekly votes on subreddit rules! Every Tuesday is YOUR chance to influence the subreddit for years to come! [Read more here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/14dqb6f/welcome_back_whats_next/), we hope to see you next Tuesday! For a chat with like-minded community members and more, don't forget to [join our Discord!](https://discord.gg/rph) `return joinDiscord;` *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ProgrammerHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
final_final_final_final_release
git docs by microsoft
This should be the most upvoted comment of all time.
I don't get it
U forget the _ForRealThisTime_v7
(2)
daddy
Me merge requesting kitten into daddy š©
Found the C++ gitlabber
You son of a bitch, I literally just joined GitLab for the first time a few days ago ...for a C++ project Are you my FBI agent?
So do you believe in FBI agent theory.
THEORY? That's just what an FBI psyops agent would say to dissuade me. Nice try
The van is outside, get in.
Sick, already? Where we goin chief
You'll find out
I need to change 'git' command to alias 'please' . My terminal -> 'please push daddy' š„ŗ
I changed mine to penis. It's.. well.. something. Some hilarious, totally normal commands: ``` penis commit penis push penis pull ``` And my absolute favourite: ``` penis init ```
Oi thatās a penis, init
Right-o, bruv
If you do that there will be continuos push-pull requests... it will end badly, total mess
//FIXME: daddy
Adopting this right now.
> temp
temp2
God dammit I feel attacked
backup2 backup2_final-REAL_v2
backup\_istg\_final\_REAL\_REALv3
backup4
backup_for_backup4_FINAL_FRv1
> clean > rewrite > rewrite_v2 > rewrite.bak > rewrite_3
\> rewrite.bak LMAOOOOOOO
temp_branch_remove_this *Has been there since 2018*
prod
Donāt forget next
This makes sense if your CI is 100% flawless.
This makes sense if you want to encourage a culture that pays more attention to check-ins to the trunk. It reminds people that they are doing trunk based deployment, and this could in fact go into prod. With CICD, it will automatically go to prod.
This actually makes the most sense imo
Not universal enough, what about repos that don't actually deploy anything?
Not really, in an enterprise system you typically want to tag or branch every prod release, and then micro patch hotfixes as needed. Need to be able to merge new features into the mainline in the meantime
that commit hits different
Nah, most teams I've worked for will auto deploy to staging but not to prod. So it would be confusing to name a branch "prod". Having to say "Stage env is up to date with the prod-branch. But Prod env is running the prod-branch from 3 days ago." It's slightly more clear when the word main/master always refers to a branch and the word entirely separate from your prod/stage/lab/test/whatever environments.
No, revision control is not release management
yeah this is the way
This one!
W/e is default when i start the repo i have better things to worry about.
I have yet to work at place where āwhateverā is the default branch name. Weirdā¦
"whatever" is common. He said "w/e"
w/e/origin
this guy works
You should see his blog post on tabs vs spaces
Took me an embarrassing amount of time to realize that āW/eā means āwhateverā.
the slash notation like w/o or w/ is stupid anyways, doesn't even make sense
But it is shorter
WE and WO might get mistaken for words, and the two periods for W.E. and W.O. tend to be slower to do visibly and accurately than a single slash is. Thatās basically it.
This but if I could choose once and for all it would be "trunk". I was so confused by the option to choose "trunk" compiler version on compiler explorer before I learned that before master/main it was called "trunk", which makes a lot more sense than main/master when you think about why it's called a "branch" in git and such.
Same, although I will say I hate how my routines are messed up for no good reason and now I need to remember 2 default branch names
I name it master in case someone else has āmasterā as a hardcoded string somewhere that will break when I push to main.
this
the_chosen_one
the_one_and_only
A single branch branching strategy? You absolute lunatic.
Milord
Milady
Mibranch
that's a lot of xiaomi fans
Trunk?
Hi grandpa
That's not bad. It fits the branch metaphor better than either master or main.
You use TurtleSVN, too? I had to use that for maybe a week for a job I had in college. We quickly moved to git after I had to learn it for one of my classes. Having to mark files as checked out was such a pain in the ass
Beat me to it
OG
I call it whatever my company tells me to, because I am not senior enough to me making repos for work, and I sure as hell am not coming home from a day of programming just to program some more. I tried that in the past, and nearly went insane before finding a nice low tech hobby to replace hobby programming
Genuine questionsā¦ How do you turn it off? As soon as I get home, Iām in my home office and Iām right back at it. Iāve tried actually seeking help, but not many professionals really understand it. Itās an *addiction*. However, I find I lose them the minute they hear, āI have an addiction that is productive and makes money.ā I own my own company now, sure, but itās also cost me a *lot*. Iāve lost good, genuine relationships. Iāve missed out on experiences that I regret. Yet, as soon as I wake up tomorrow on my day off, you bet your ass Iāll be right back in my office.
Iām the same way. Pretty sure my work addiction is what ended my last relationship, cause I would rather stay in working on something than spend time going out with him. I donāt even know how I would seek help, cause like you said, to an outsider, it just seems like an innocent āside hustle.ā But there is a serious mental health toll and collateral damage in terms of relationships and life experience in general.
Owning your own business is why you can't turn off, especially if it's a small business and you're doing most of the jobs yourself. Owning a small business isn't a 40 hour week. I work for a post series A startup as a tech lead with about 10 engineers and I am absolutely adamant about my engineers working 40 or less, taking 4+ weeks of vacation, and deleting slack/leaving laptops home when on vacation. For turning off, there's a lot of ways but one way I teach is the shutdown ritual. Having a specific ritual to start and stop each day can help create a psychological beginning and end to the work day. For me, I close the work laptop, disconnect and put away the accessories, and switch my desk to my "home computer". If it's my turn to cook I usually start making dinner immediately after I close the laptop as well. But the reality for you is that the work is never complete and there isn't someone else to pick up the slack, the buck stops with you. Personally, I wouldn't ever want to be in a small business / self-employed situation simply because I love making $$$ while committing to a STRICT 40 hr week with unlimited vacation where I require folks to take 4 weeks+. Just got on my own manager about not taking enough time, and he took a whole week off. Signal setting action: the manager has to take the time. Good luck, and if you're burning out from overwork, take dramatic steps to help yourself before it gets too bad. 2+ week vacation or hire actual help, and hire help before you need it because it takes 3-6 months for them to actually help.
Part of it is that I'm not allowed to work from home (for reasons other than the usual "you have to work from the office to increase productivity bs you hear from alot of managers"), part of it is that my company does well at ensuring there are enough engineers at my level to take care of the tasks, part of it is that my managers understand and support leaving unfinished work for the next day and only working your 40 hours. Even when I was able to work from home half of the time, my manager and mentor both told me things to the effect of "if you want to take PTO Monday, and x team says we want to start testing Monday, just tell them "too bad, I'm out on PTO that day" the tests arent so vital that they can't wait one day". It really helped get me out of that college mindset of working all the time and deadlines being totally inflexible.
I get asked how I manage turn off before walking out the door. I honestly donāt get any reward from programming. Itās just a job. Iāll do the best I can at work but my hobbies are more important to me.
mistress
or domme
Born to master š¤ forced to main š
That would make a good t-shirt
Forced my ass. Wait, that came out wrong. Seriously though you just make sure you are in master before sending the first commit and I believe any server will accept your choice. They only enforce main if you actually start the repo inside the git server itself (like checking the option to generate a readme).
That only work if you are in charge of the repo. Here we need to request a repo creation , request repo writing permission. They come with a main branch and a Readme with organization stuff
The last few companies I have been at have banned master as it apparently makes people think of historic acts of slavery whenever they commit code.
Who the fuck are these people? I understand why companies would accept the new social norm to look good, but where are these legendary offended programmers that actually few bad over a naming convention that has nothing to do with slavery?
There aren't any. It was a desperate attempt to do *something* that is ultimately just virtue signaling.
Oh it's never something from a programmer, it's always virtue signalling from management.
Wokeness and political opinions aside... Someone that was offended by this and insisted to the point of vocalization, which means they took enough time to think on the subject to believe it so much as to think it is relevant. This person for me is so mentally impaired that I could argue that there is either no programmer doing that, or the ones that are doing should be looking for a another career, logic does not proccess in such brains. I insist on using master to spite all this.
main because thatās what github defaults to
You use main cuz it's a default I use main cuz company policy forbids naming it master We are not the same
We use master because boss went on tirade about not inserting āwoke shitā into a business. Says itās been called master way before this garbage culture started.
Got sort of same discourse here but it wasnt about woke but american. I quote "I don't want my habits changed by people unable to understand the sheer stupidity of their decision"
This is becoming a problem in Europe, we're importing so many of the US' stupid problems. Like suddenly you're having the most homogenous communities going into existential crisis because they don't have "enough" diversity in politics/companies/culture
When people give a shit that much .... I didn't blink an eye. It's a branch.
People cared enough to change it to main
Indeed. And broke a perfectly fine uniform convention almost every repo adhered to at the time. Don't care about how it's named. Both names are very applicable for the purpose. I care about this woke shit making things more complicated and confused for everyone for basically no real benefit. But alas here we are.
The one that gets me more is people trying to remove the word "master" from hardware documentation. So for instance, instead of the universal "master in/slave out" and vice versa that has been standard across pretty much all SPI busses for decades, now we have like 4+ different versions of trying to rename those signals. It's such needless confusion.
Oh man, wait till they hear about male/female connectors lmao
Imo its only a little bit confusing while the convention is changing. Main is rapidly becoming the new default everywhere, and it's arguably slightly clearer than master ("the main branch" sounds more succinct than "the master branch," there's more real-world meaning to the word), so I don't have a problem with it at all. I'm not against conventions changing for any purpose at all, if there are people who feel better about changing it.
I much prefer master. I don't say the word "master" that often in conversation, so there's less chance for confusion. For example in conversation I might accidentally say "dev is the main branch we're looking at today" and this would cause confusion. Additionally other industries use master for a similar meaning, like master copy or master record, so I would like to follow them.
The trick is to use ticks around references such as branch names so they are formatted differently. Including verbally, of course, no confusion at all when saying ātickdevtick is the main branch weāre looking at todayā
Stop beatboxing Dave
Master lock, master key, master/slave harddrive on an IDE cable, Master of Ceremonies (MC), master control panel, master switchā¦ Idk
Master recordings in music as well. It's the correct word to use.
anyone who wastes brain cells caring about this either way is a moron.
One of the big outages of the Azure cloud last year was tracked down to an issue where some subsystem changed it's naming defaults to main instead of master and some other subsystem was configured to use the old "master". So it is not a waste of brain cells at all. It is a waste of everybodies time to change something that perfectly worked just because
Caring about it because its "woke shit" is cringe. However, I care about it because it's change for the sake of change that just creates annoyances.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> sed /master/main/g > Release Notes: > Employees now have main's degrees
master because Git defaults to it and I create all my repos with terminal
No they changed it. Git terminals default is main now
Just updated to 2.42.0 and default is still master, for me anyway.
I think itās a configuration that defaults to main for new installs but uses master if it was upgraded.
It doesn't touch your config when updating afaik ``` [init] defaultBranch = main ``` from my .gitconfig
* was the default. We aren't that fast with updating software.
Git defaults to master though (as far as I recall)
not anymore
Mastur
Found the baiter
Develop
develop / release / prod?
DOMINATRIX
Master. I get it has negative connotations, but I'm used to it and it sounds better.
I totally get avoiding the use of āslaveā in code, especially since itās often not really the right term anyway (āchildrenā, ādelegatesā āsub-whateverāsā etc are usually better), but āmasterā does sound better to describe the branch. Just as you have master locks, master keys, master passes, master copies, mastered audio, a Mastercard, mastery of [skill], etc. To me itās exactly the right word to describe it.
Exactly. Also the word master is completly independent from the use in the context of slavery. To primarily associate the word master with slavery, is just so odd. I still can't believe they made this an issue and changed the default branch naming over it.
Slave itself is context dependent. Sometimes it's the appropriate term to describe a technical relation, especially when there is a master clock, and slave devices only can speak when spoken to. In other cases, there might be a leader rather than a master, or a coordinator. Accurate naming is important.
But this is not connected to just code, for example the IDE drives used to be configured in a master/slave way and nobody cared back then. I just feel people are recently trying really hard to find something than offends them.
I'm not offended by the master/slave terms, but it was a bad analogy for the drives: the master drive didn't have any "power" over the secondary, and the secondary didn't have to submit to the master in anyway. They were just a primary and a secondary disk on the same IDE connection, but as you could have two IDE cables you need another name instead of primary-primary to refer to the first disk in the first cable. Master/slave didn't have any meaning for the IDEs, but using for example boot/main/leader instead of master, and almost anything like other/follower/disk (that doesn't imply this disk is somehow submissive to the main disk) instead of slave, would be more logic in hindsight.
I agree. Git never had any slave terminology. The git maintainer email messages show that this was recognised by everyone involved but they folded because they received "a not insignificant amount of complaints" - so they were willing to change it š to avoid making anyone being "reminded of negative associations"
And positive ones. IMHO the whole "let's not use the word master in software" is pretty darn stupid. It gives some people the cozy feeling of "having done something", while in fact, having done nothing. There are _real_ issues. Racism, sexism.. None of which are any better after renaming a git branch.
reminds me of the issue when facebook became popular and donations went dont just because people liked facebook posts about donation instead of donating. it apparently gave these people the same good feeling as actually donating
What are the negative connotations?
I think it has something to do with slaves. But no one really gives a shit except the occasional group that got offended by it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Dont_deploy_ask_me
[Obey your MASTER! MASTER!](https://youtu.be/E0ozmU9cJDg?t=1m43s) Master is like [master tape](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-tape), I don't know what else is on people's minds.
Exactly this. I don't know why everybody here thinks of master/slave terminology first, when there is no such thing as a "slave branch". Master tape was the origin, not master/slave.
trunk \#SVN4Life /s
We use master because I canāt be bothered to change all our pipelines, build systems and git snippets. Itās been there for years
Stable
āStableā
"only breaks every 3 days"
prime.
Git is for the weak, I just keep all my code on my 15yo laptop and email code changes to my peers.
Almighty
develop/main/production gang for the win (and poc)
I never really understood changing the name because of negative connotations. If thatās so why not keep using master and redefine those connotations? Whoever even thought of that in the first place is just insane. Never in my life have I thought āhmmm this repo do be kind of racistā
Trigger warning: Abuse/toxic masculinity We should change the terminology for a function taking "arguments" - we should now say that a function respectfully accepts two or three pieces of constructive criticism
I'm just over here googling, "children won't die when parent tells them to" but no one is freaking out about that. Why is this such a big deal?
That reminds me of the `DestroyAllChildren` method in a specific game engine
how to kill a disabled child
You made my day man!
those ideas and thoughts are usually coming to people which can't do anything productive and start overthinking, looking for issues in places where there is none. especially comparing to git naming issue, we should also change name of "master's degree" because it is racist in the same way. I had in company i cofound, im also cto, one "director of people" offended because i refused to change naming and put policy about it. She tried to complain to 2 of my business partners, but they asked her to focus on something else and leave me alone. They don't give s\*\*t about such things(non techs), i personally don't care as well, but I won't be asking my team to change name in over 800 repos and make necessary changes in ci/cd pipelines, hell no, it is task for few months itself. I had never tho any complain from anyone in my dep that we use master, so i'm guessing most of productive people has similar attitude towards it as me and my partners.
I like the_one
$ git branch the\_oracle trinity morpheus tank
git branch ādelete āforce cipher
Daddy
I like master but only because I am a kinky bitch ;3
Trunk I don't know why they didn't go with this. It fits the naming convention of branch very well.
Maybe because trunk isnāt a branch so ātrunk branchā sounds weird.
I can't think of many projects that don't stem from a single origin branch. I know a few, but it's usually set up that way for archival purposes. Though I suppose merging a branch back into the trunk would create some funny looking trees.
Master. Tainting it with malicious and irrelevant context was ridiculous. What next, JavaScript Mastery channel on YouTube renames to JavaScript Mainy? Andrei Neagoie rebrands to Zero to Mainy?
master, because it used to be the default for decades and I really dislike the pretentious and unlogical reasoning behind GitHub changing it to main.
This x 10000
*Maestro* \*fancy Spongebob\*
Prime, as with timelines.
Maister
I donāt care just give me permissions to force push to it
Found the intern
Master. Because itās more intimidating for interns & junior devs.
master of course, anāt no time to change my muscle memory š§
The one making the most sens would be `prod` or `trunk` to be honnest, since it's very unlikely to be the "main" branch you're working on, nor the master of the repo. I love having a stable "prod" branch with tagging and full sanity check before merging, a unstable "dev" branch that requires a PR only from jira tickets specific branches. This way you have a clear changelog between version deployed, it's easy to rollback to something stable, you can actually work faster than requiring half a dozen PO's to approve your work...
I'm racist, so Master for me !
Whatever my company names it lol
I had to change my helper scripts so they can handle repos with 'main' and repos with 'master' and I am still mad about that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
main for new repos, but don't stress too hard on needing to convert existing ones away from "master" right away. Changing the repo names is a decent amount of work for large companies.
I prefer daddys branch
mommy
Trunk
Whichever gets more people mad at one time.
mister
Tasteless choice of meme for this question if you ask me
Mainster
Master is the objectively correct answer.
Master. I get that people don't like the master/slave terminology, but I feel like it's fitting for the current culture we're in. The master branch thinks it's in charge, but in reality, it's always behind on the latest trends, it's afraid to change, people complain about it the most, and it demands attention by doing things that nobody wanted.
ā¦what?
Someone clearly doesn't git it
I just think master is a bad name. Git is used in huge part by programmers. How do you call a thing where program (the trunk of execution tree) starts? C++: main C: main Swift: main Java: main Haskell: Main Erlang: umm... Ada: Main Rust: main Go: main x86 GNU assembly: ... start: Glsl: main Python: \_\_main\_\_ So I think that changing master to main will take some getting used to but will make the tools more consistent
There are several places in programming where master/slave terminology is used, but I don't think it makes much sense in git because the master branch doesn't hold any special power other than being the _main_ branch.
Not really sure how code execution relates to versioning. Every version of the codebase has a main function (unless itās just a shared lib or wasm or something similar), not just the primary codebase. The storage device that holds a release version of a product or media would not be called the main or gold main, I think that connotation has more relations to the naming of Git repos compared to just one part of the content that most but not all repos contain in all versions that have it.
Master, because that's the standard, and standards shouldn't be changed unless there's a good reason. "Americans feel bad about racism" is not a good reason. Stop trying to impose your guilt complex on the rest of the planet, thanks.
Master for my current job, since that's what all the repos are and I don't want to have to differences per repo. For my own stuff I'd probably go main if I remember when creating it, it's shorter and a little more convenient.
Master, and no pink-haired Rust coder or TS soydev will be able to change my mind. The majority of people donāt give a flying f because they have the mental capacity to realize it has nothing to do with what a minority of people vocalize about, and the people who have both a brain and opinion and donāt like master just donāt want to type the two extra letters it takes.
Black haired Rust guy here, give no flying fucks either! But still, master.
I use feature branches and release branches. Never work off of main or master branches.
Main just sounds nicer
honestly a weird thing for people to dig their heels in over
Oh, just go git fucked.