I use master because when I do ‘git init .’ I get a master branch and I am lazy enough to not rename it. As for typing it later on… . Well zsh does that for me
Oh I don’t give a single fuck about the discussion, it’s technology, not politics. I am more upset that my company has some legacy repositories with master and the newer ones with a main branch. So everytime I want to create a MR with push options via command line I need to change main to master or visa versa.
This is a huge pain in the ass for us as well. We have some automation with development environment and deployment of certain scripts. We had to redo a good chunk of them to first test whether there’s main or master. And it took us a long time to find stragglers that weren’t as frequently updated but would suddenly break deploymend after minor changes.
No disrespect, but asking everyone to remove words from the English language because they may offend a small group of oversensitive people is one of the most frustrating social initiatives of our time. “Master” makes sense for the job and unless we’re also putting “Slave” and “Cotton” on the dictionary chopping block, the arguement will always seem arbitrary to me.
More to the point it refers to relation between elements and not the political correctness of the act. Just how the terminology is used in books, but reading one doesn’t imply you are a racist or condone slavery.
The only reason you think “master” makes sense is because you’re used to it. It’s actually quite a weird connection to make, if you aren’t used to it. “Main” is much more straight forward. And nobody is really demanding people stop using “master”, so far as I am aware, it’s just that people are making that choice themselves.
Yes that is the point. They made the choice to change their default. You can still make the choice to name your branches, especially the main one, as you like. Setting it for a project is less work than complaining about it.
It is much easier for lots of western progressives (i.e. moderates if that label was used properly) to fix a naming scheme than reevaluate the exploitative structures on which their lives are based.
Oh, how upset I was by that decision. I still call out GitHub online every now and then thanking them for solving slavery by messing up my deployment scripts and development environments.
They forced the change. If I wanted otherwise, I had to go and specify per project that master was the default branch, and there were many of those. And whole “insanely fragile” is just nonsense or are you trying to tell me people have conditions and scripts that detects what’s the default branch and use that instead of assuming default name that hasn’t changed for 15 years would remain default?
Whether you like Linus or not, whatever is released to users stops being a bug and becomes a feature. Not breaking user-space is a must. Instead they achieved nothing and caused a lot of unnecessary work to a lot of developers.
Had to refresh my memory, it’s been a while. They didn’t change branch on existing projects, but they did change it on new repos to main by default. Our tools indeed created repositories and configured everything for the developer automatically. However GitHub’s policy meant that you had to either change the tools to detect whether they are working with old repo or new, or go to every new project after automatic configuration fails, configure default branch and then rerun the tool. Same thing then happened to few of our tools that were used for CI.
All in all they made more work for us for no reason other than be smug about it and it changed exactly nothing.
So your tooling was at fault for assuming something that has always been declared a convention not a rule. It is like assuming we will never reach the year 2000 and there only storing the last to digits for the year…
It speaks to deep rooted butthurtness of USA boomers and constant need to enforce their stupid ass rules to others. It’s not racist, neither are blacklist or whitelist.
Even ignoring the question of racism, they are still stupid names.
Imagine teaching a child about this and it asks: Why is white allowed and black not? The only answer is, because it is like this for a long time. If we name them allowlist and denylist, it is obvious to all English speaking people. Shouldn’t we strive for descriptive names in programming?
However, if you use names whitelist an blacklist, you need to make the implicit connection white-positive black-negative. Yes obviously this does not make you racist if you do this in programming. But is it good?
White - light. Black - no light. White knight - good. Black knight - bad.
These two colors have a meaning. It has fuck all to do with skin color. And if you do, then you are helping to enable “useless racism” in the form of “this offends the black community”, while literally nobody gives a fuck.
Its a useless change in the sake of changing things. Everyone is tech eants the superstar and wants to say “Hey, you are using X (not Twitter in this case)! I made that, noice.”.
If someone decided to change it next week to primary, would you be for or against it?
Yes colors have a meaning. However, they change ober time and culture. So why not use the word which describes exactly what we mean?
I agree, nowadays blacklist/whitelist has practically nothing to do with skin color. However i do think it is weird to use the same words for describing the appearance of people and good/bad.
Well i would be indifferent to the renaming to primary, because it doesn’t really matter to me what they call their branches, as long as it is descriptive. primary also conveys the meaning.
I would probably continue using main/dev because i see no reason to change.
I am not someone who says “You should change this!”. I just say, think of it, there are some reasons to change and the only reason to keep it, os that we did it always like this. I think there are reasons for selecting better words. And I am only annoyed by people who are outraged by things others do, which does not really affects them negatively. I get it that someone wants to continue using blacklist, master, etc. and I am ok with that.
Taking this stuff personally is just intellectual laziness. The phrase “Allowlist” isn’t about that guy, and if he can’t grok that it isn’t he needs to work on himself.
I really don’t see the problem with switching the names.
You seem to be the only one in this entire discussion getting triggered about being more inclusive honestly. Nobody else cares…
But yeah, as others have said, the changes make sense regardless, and if it’s more inclusive, I have no problem with that. It’s not a big deal for me, but it might be for other people.
If you’re offended by the change, you can still use master as your main repo.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Slave owning GitHub users everywhere offended
I use
mainline, and I thought I was incredibly lazy!I guess I am not lazy enough.
I use
masterbecause I’m nostalgic. If it matters that much, though, I’ll start usingtrunk(like we used to back in the days of SVN).Don’t speak the name of that horror!
At least it was better than CVS
Hey I still use SVN
How can you? I would understand if you have to, but Mercurial/Git approach is so much more flexible.
trunk sounds cook. reminds me of that Dragon Ball character, naruto
Trunk makes absolutely no sense. How does something “branch” from a “trunk”? That’s lunacy.
It’s a branch coming from the trunk?
You’re speaking crazy talk.
Surely you’ve heard of trees.
Yes, I’m joking.
Master sounded so much cooler man
Like yeah I’m a master of linux
Literally no connotation to slavery when the word slave isn’t even used in the git terminology
We’re just used to it though. What does master have above main in terms of communicating context?
master is cooler, also reminds he-man!
Master gang
deleted by creator
When you’re pro slavery but only when it’s with consenting adults.
Main in the workplace, master in the bedroom.
I use master because when I do ‘git init .’ I get a master branch and I am lazy enough to not rename it. As for typing it later on… . Well zsh does that for me
I use “secondary” as my default branch, because fuck the rules.
Some men just want to watch the world burn
secondary_final___stevesOh I don’t give a single fuck about the discussion, it’s technology, not politics. I am more upset that my company has some legacy repositories with master and the newer ones with a main branch. So everytime I want to create a MR with push options via command line I need to change main to master or visa versa.
This is a huge pain in the ass for us as well. We have some automation with development environment and deployment of certain scripts. We had to redo a good chunk of them to first test whether there’s
mainormaster. And it took us a long time to find stragglers that weren’t as frequently updated but would suddenly break deploymend after minor changes.For people who really think it doesn’t matter, then why does it matter so much you waste your time complaining?
I use main as my default branch because it’s what Git has been defaulting to for some time now
You mean github.
Git’s still master by default; github uses main for new repositories.
No disrespect, but asking everyone to remove words from the English language because they may offend a small group of oversensitive people is one of the most frustrating social initiatives of our time. “Master” makes sense for the job and unless we’re also putting “Slave” and “Cotton” on the dictionary chopping block, the arguement will always seem arbitrary to me.
More to the point it refers to relation between elements and not the political correctness of the act. Just how the terminology is used in books, but reading one doesn’t imply you are a racist or condone slavery.
The only reason you think “master” makes sense is because you’re used to it. It’s actually quite a weird connection to make, if you aren’t used to it. “Main” is much more straight forward. And nobody is really demanding people stop using “master”, so far as I am aware, it’s just that people are making that choice themselves.
GitHub, GitLab, and git itself, are all using
mainas the default name of the default branch, by default.Yes that is the point. They made the choice to change their default. You can still make the choice to name your branches, especially the main one, as you like. Setting it for a project is less work than complaining about it.
I vote for naming this branch “mommy”, since all other branches are it’s offspring, and related to it.
name it daddy so i can open an issue and say i have daddy issues
Aren’t we though? At least when it comes to tech, Master-Slave terminology has been largely deprecated in favor of other terms.
deleted by creator
It is much easier for lots of western progressives (i.e. moderates if that label was used properly) to fix a naming scheme than reevaluate the exploitative structures on which their lives are based.
Oh, how upset I was by that decision. I still call out GitHub online every now and then thanking them for solving slavery by messing up my deployment scripts and development environments.
Wait did GitHub retroactively change existing master branches to main, or was your stuff insanely fragile?
They forced the change. If I wanted otherwise, I had to go and specify per project that master was the default branch, and there were many of those. And whole “insanely fragile” is just nonsense or are you trying to tell me people have conditions and scripts that detects what’s the default branch and use that instead of assuming default name that hasn’t changed for 15 years would remain default?
Whether you like Linus or not, whatever is released to users stops being a bug and becomes a feature. Not breaking user-space is a must. Instead they achieved nothing and caused a lot of unnecessary work to a lot of developers.
They never forced a retroactive change
I use GitHub and all my older repos have a master branch with no forced change. When did they force a change? I think you are mistaken.
Had to refresh my memory, it’s been a while. They didn’t change branch on existing projects, but they did change it on new repos to main by default. Our tools indeed created repositories and configured everything for the developer automatically. However GitHub’s policy meant that you had to either change the tools to detect whether they are working with old repo or new, or go to every new project after automatic configuration fails, configure default branch and then rerun the tool. Same thing then happened to few of our tools that were used for CI.
All in all they made more work for us for no reason other than be smug about it and it changed exactly nothing.
I think this is an excuse. Using the CLI you can easily create and specify the default branch. It’s also not difficult to check the branch name.
So your tooling was at fault for assuming something that has always been declared a convention not a rule. It is like assuming we will never reach the year 2000 and there only storing the last to digits for the year…
deleted by creator
m, I win.
n
my m is shorter than yours
wait…
r
no…
╷
Trunk Master Race.
It speaks to the deep rooted whiteness of the industry that such a common-sense change is treated as completely bullshit even to this day.
It speaks to deep rooted butthurtness of USA boomers and constant need to enforce their stupid ass rules to others. It’s not racist, neither are blacklist or whitelist.
Even ignoring the question of racism, they are still stupid names.
Imagine teaching a child about this and it asks: Why is white allowed and black not? The only answer is, because it is like this for a long time. If we name them allowlist and denylist, it is obvious to all English speaking people. Shouldn’t we strive for descriptive names in programming?
However, if you use names whitelist an blacklist, you need to make the implicit connection white-positive black-negative. Yes obviously this does not make you racist if you do this in programming. But is it good?
White - light. Black - no light. White knight - good. Black knight - bad.
These two colors have a meaning. It has fuck all to do with skin color. And if you do, then you are helping to enable “useless racism” in the form of “this offends the black community”, while literally nobody gives a fuck.
Its a useless change in the sake of changing things. Everyone is tech eants the superstar and wants to say “Hey, you are using X (not Twitter in this case)! I made that, noice.”.
If someone decided to change it next week to
primary, would you be for or against it?Yes colors have a meaning. However, they change ober time and culture. So why not use the word which describes exactly what we mean?
I agree, nowadays blacklist/whitelist has practically nothing to do with skin color. However i do think it is weird to use the same words for describing the appearance of people and good/bad.
Well i would be indifferent to the renaming to primary, because it doesn’t really matter to me what they call their branches, as long as it is descriptive.
primaryalso conveys the meaning. I would probably continue using main/dev because i see no reason to change.I am not someone who says “You should change this!”. I just say, think of it, there are some reasons to change and the only reason to keep it, os that we did it always like this. I think there are reasons for selecting better words. And I am only annoyed by people who are outraged by things others do, which does not really affects them negatively. I get it that someone wants to continue using blacklist, master, etc. and I am ok with that.
Why is a filled checkbox positive and an empty checkbox negative
Sounds like white true black false is not universal
AL/BL. See, not stupid at all. You just don’t want to admit you’re deeply racist and that’s your motivation for caring a non-zero shit about this.
Programmers will literally uproot their entire language of choice if it’s required it but can’t replace one definition? Give me a fucking break.
Taking this stuff personally is just intellectual laziness. The phrase “Allowlist” isn’t about that guy, and if he can’t grok that it isn’t he needs to work on himself.
Deepthroating the boot isn’t making your life any less shitty.
I really don’t see the problem with switching the names.
You seem to be the only one in this entire discussion getting triggered about being more inclusive honestly. Nobody else cares…
But yeah, as others have said, the changes make sense regardless, and if it’s more inclusive, I have no problem with that. It’s not a big deal for me, but it might be for other people.
If you’re offended by the change, you can still use master as your main repo.