• undefinedValue@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 hours 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
        10
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It was kind of pointless, but at least it made software work with custom default branches.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 hours 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.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours 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.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour 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!

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yeah agreed. Just another piece of white devs acting like they knew better for everyone.