• 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
          11 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.