• 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
      ·
      3 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
      8
      ·
      4 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
        3
        ·
        2 hours 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!

        • ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 minutes ago

          Merged -> gone gold

          Deployed -> gone platinum

          Gone a week without crashing production -> triple platinum

    • 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.