• undefinedValue@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sadly? Master branch never implied the existence of a slave branch. It was one of the dumbest pieces of woke incursion into tech.

        • qaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

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

        • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day 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.

          • vulpivia@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            That’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.

              • vulpivia@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours 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.)

                • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  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.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day 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!

            • ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 day ago

              Merged -> gone gold

              Deployed -> gone platinum

              Gone a week without crashing production -> triple platinum

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day 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.

          • undefinedValue@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            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.

          • weker01@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            12 hours 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
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

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

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah agreed. Just another piece of white devs acting like they knew better for everyone.