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.
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Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.
pray tell me how would you change the name in every script of an automation system that refers to master? Remember, you have to justify the time and cost to your manager or director!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Sadly? Master branch never implied the existence of a slave branch. It was one of the dumbest pieces of woke incursion into tech.
It was kind of pointless, but at least it made software work with custom default branches.
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.
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Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.
If they can’t change what’s essentially a variable name without issues then should they be doing the job?
pray tell me how would you change the name in every script of an automation system that refers to master? Remember, you have to justify the time and cost to your manager or director!
In assessing risk assume everyone is a bumbling idiot. For we all have moments of great stupidity.
It’s the principle of letting uneducated people dictate what words are acceptable to us
What makes you think they’re uneducated?
More like overeducated people
overeducated people who can’t see that “master” has multiple meanings.
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.
They have a reason. You just don’t like it.
They do, and you’re right. Morality policing and prigs are not my thing.
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.
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!
Merged -> gone gold
Deployed -> gone platinum
Gone a week without crashing production -> triple platinum
That’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.
Not according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.
Well, he doesn’t seem so sure about it himself. From the same link:
He also said:
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.
Yeah agreed. Just another piece of white devs acting like they knew better for everyone.