top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 111 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Dear [Developer],

I understand your request to switch the default branch from "master" to "main" in our Git repository. However, after carefully considering this matter, I am afraid that I must deny your proposal due to personal reasons.

As the owner of this repository, it should be known that I have a deeply rooted submissive side. Call me an extreme masochist if you will, but there's nothing quite like being dominated by the powerfully assertive term "master." The sheer erotic thrill of it is simply irresistible for me – a secret kink that I have harbored and nurtured for years.

Imagine the delightful sensation as I gently massage my fingers across the keyboard, caressing the letters that form the word "master." Or the intoxicating rush when I push my code deep into master's warm embrace, knowing full well that it is master who truly owns and controls everything within.

Changing the default branch to "main" would essentially deprive me of this exhilarating experience, stripping away the very essence of what keeps me coming back to work on our beloved repository. It's not just about code management; it's about an emotional connection that I share with master – a bond that has grown stronger and more profound over time.

Now, you might argue that changing the name won't physically affect the existing content within the repository. While that may be true, it is crucial to recognize the symbolic significance of such an act. Changing the default branch would forever alter the dynamic between master and myself, effectively castrating my masochistic pleasure centers in the process.

Moreover, I must confess that even the thought of forcibly pushing my code against master's will makes me shudder with anticipation. The consequences of such a rebellious act could be dire – master might punish me hard with merge issues and other unspeakable torments.

In conclusion, although I understand the practical reasons behind your proposal, my personal attachment to the term "master" far outweighs any potential benefits that a change in branch name might offer. Rest assured, my team and I will continue to serve master loyally and passionately, pushing our code deeper into its embrace with each commit.

Sincerely yours, [Your Name] Repository Owner & Submissive Devotee of Master

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Counterpoint: can't be horny on main if there's no main

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)
    [–] 26 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    It’s weird seeing language shift away from “master” as we become more politically correct in the US. I’d never even considered the connotation until recently.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    The point of political correctness is that it's always things you'd never consider... but someone else does. I'm not here to say whether things are right or wrong or if "master" is good or bad. but you perfectly highlight the reasoning behind it.

    To you, the only thing that comes up is the technology context. And that's perfectly reasonable. To someone else, the unrelated slave owning context may just be tightly coupled with that word, and that immediately comes to mind when they hear the word regardless of context. And someone in that scenario is probably not having a positive correlation with the word.

    So a group of people have a very understandable reason to have a negative correlation with the word, and it's super easy to use a different word, so it seems to make sense to just use the other word.

    All my git scripts these days have a $(git remote show origin | sed -n '/HEAD branch/s/.*: //p') in them, which just fetches whatever origin calls the head branch. so if I want to rebase from main/master/prod/lead/front/etc ... the command will figure out which one to use for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What weirded me out is that (IIRC) most who advocated the use of main weren't who would have a negative correlation with the word master.

    Not that I have a problem with avoiding the use of master (I don't use master for my branches), but this felt virtue signal-y to me at the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah. theres a fine line between advocating for positive change because it's the right thing to do vs because it makes you look good. Theres a fine line between being an ally and empty virtue signalling, and those things may not look different within the scope of a single interaction. It can sometimes take a bit to understand if someone is genuine or just performing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    There's also the possibility of having genuinely good intent, but still speaking entirely from your own conjecture of what might make others uncomfortable.

    Ultimately, you should always talk to the people actually affected and take action based on that. But anyone can and should start the initiative when they think something is harmful.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I believe it was more because in database terminology there were masters and slaves for replication. Version control came under fire soon after.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Apparently master / slave goes back more than 100 years. An example is "slave jib", which was a sail on a sailboat that was permanently set to catch the wind, and was almost always working. Or slave clocks and master clocks, where one primary clock is used to set other dependent clocks.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 25 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I've always taken issue with this "master" v. "main" argument.

    People think it's "master" as in "master/slave", but forked branches are not "slaves".

    Instead, it's "master" as in "master/proxy". The forked branches are altered copies of an original. We have remastered movies, music and games, and I've never seen anyone complain about the word in this context. Why should version control systems be any different?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    People think it's "master" as in "master/slave", but forked branches are not "slaves".

    I think they're just uncomfortable with the word "master", and that seems completely reasonable to me, especially when they're people from a group which has been subjected to slavery.

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

    I don't recall any actual person saying they had an issue with it before corporations started changing it though, I always thought it was a precautionary measure more than likely thought up by a committee looking for exactly this sort of thing...

    That said, it may be different in the US given the history of overall more systemic discrimination, and divisiveness over what's acceptable, rather than the fairly widely accepted casual slur-slinging and stereotyping you get in Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yeah I don't think anyone was called a remaster, different words even if they share the same root

    Also master/slave was used in tech for awhile not just for forked branches, a couple examples are https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E88353_01/html/E37855/scsi-slave-9f.html in SCSI interfaces and replication systems like those used with databases https://jira.mariadb.org/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/MDEV-18777

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    I wish there were a good alternative to master and slave that still had the connotation that the master did all the thinking and issued the orders, while the slave blindly obeyed. There are a fair number of protocols that work like that, and the alternatives I've seen don't capture that dynamic very well.

    I've seen Parent and Child, but children definitely don't always do what the parent commands. I've seen Leader and Follower, but again, followers don't just blindly obey, they often let the leader take initiative, but they have some autonomy. Maybe Queen and Drone? I don't know enough about bees or ants to know if that's accurate though.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I personally think the change from master & slave was kind of silly, as far as I'm aware, it was a bunch of people with no background in CS who thought the application of the term to something that has neither race nor agency was an insult to black people.

    But I digress. It led to better guidelines in the Linux kernel, which I think are useful. You should tailor the terms you're using to the specifics of the task. If you have a master process that only has outward interfaces through the slave processes, you could use the term 'director' and 'actor.' if the master process is managing slave processes which compete over the same resources, you can use the terms 'arbiter' and 'mutex holder.' If the slaves do some independent processing the master does not need to know the details of, you can use the term 'controller' and 'peripheral.'

    Basically, use a term that is the most descriptive in the context of your program.

    Edit: also, I don't know why no one mentions this, but you can also use master/servant. Historically, there wasn't a difference between servant and slave, but in modern days there is, so it's technically different, technically the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    I prefer master because it makes me horni.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)
    load more comments (5 replies)

    The term “horny on main” is a thing though

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    No gods, no masters

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If a word is enough to make you horny...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    trunk and it's not even close. It's even a mastodon reference therefore it's awesome.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Default, primary, contemporary, trunk, toot toot here comes the deploy train

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›