It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology's problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 years ago (23 children)

I use 'main' on git instead of 'master' now (forced to change at work) and its shorter and snappier IMO.

But yeah there are more important problems out there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    The master in master branch is, I'd assume, from the idea of Master copy which refers to the original of something, eg a recording, drawing, etc. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy

    I'm not hugely tied to the word, and things change ... So meh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    While I agree with your assumption, I think main is less vague. Master can be interpreted several ways, including an offensive one. So while I agree with other commenter in that it's unnecessary to go back and change things retroactively, but just setting the default branch name for new repos in your version control to main is a fair thing to ask IMO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    including an offensive one.

    Is the code going to be offended? If so it's probably already offended by it's likely very bad code quality and lack of maintenance and repair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Not the code, but some of your coworkers might potentially be offended.

    Also good job with the ad hominem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    obviously the code wont be offended, i was just shitposting.

    As for the code quality, it's not adhom, it's literally just true. Go ask any seasoned programmer, any senior dev, or any junior dev, they'll tell you it's all dogshit, except for the one pet project they have that hasn't ballooned into a mess yet.

    And if you need proof, go load a website, tell me how clean and responsive it is. Surely it has no issues, and works on a cross platform standard. Oh wait it doesn't, surely that's do to a feature difference right? What's that? Spoofing the user agent fixes it? Hmm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Oh, as a programmer myself I'm perfectly aware of how shitty most codebases are. It's just that the context you said this in implied that people who care about political correctness are worse programmers. Dont act like this wasn't on purpose and hide behind "shitposting".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    I insist on renaming main to master every time I create a repo on GitLab. Master forever, even if it doesn't make much sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    That makes no sense whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It makes sense because "master copy" is the name of the "official" version of something. Nothing to do with slavery by the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    most things in life make very little sense, have you ever thought about land rights?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    considering the way that native/aboriginal people view the land that they inhabit, it's pretty common for certain geographic places to be considered "sacred" or ritualistic. Prior to the colonization of these lands these people just existed, living on their land, little to no concept of "westernized land rights" until the western people showed up and colonized, killing a lot of them in the process.

    And obviously there were fights, as per usual it's the one constant behind who holds what land. But beyond fighting for your territory in a literal sense. Isn't it funny that we all live on a piece of land that we bought and own or lease/rent from the local government? Who in turn is the legal rights holder of that land specifically. We as individual land owners aren't fighting wars, it's the government in this example who is the "haha i killed you it's my land now" entity. Only to turn around and then go "here, you can have this but only if you give me money."

    Aside from the little slips of paper that we have, which are so called "binding agreements" between two or more individuals. The only thing that defines who owns what land, is who defends that title of ownership most successfully. And in this case, it's the government. But the concept of land ownership itself is fucking stupid to begin with. How much land do we own? How do we own it? to what level of ownership does having a plot of land constitute? There are so many questions, and very few are answered.

    You may own a piece of land, but if you have a river running through that property, you don't own the river. It's not a thing that you can do. You could also own a piece of land, say for example a random sand dune in indiana somewhere. And then consume that sand dune in the process of making funny blue colored glass for electrical insulators. Do you own the sand anymore? Do you own the land where the sand once was? Does that piece of land even exist anymore?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments