7 ms·

WRT github, you just skip the second line when adding your upstream origin. If you mean the greater global consciousness... nobody cares. Main is 2 fewer lette

WRT github, you just skip the second line when adding your upstream origin. If you mean the greater global consciousness... nobody cares. Main is 2 fewer letters to type, you'll sound like a madman advocating for anything else. It would be easier to bring back eight-space tabs or BSD coreutils. You should make your peace with it one way or another and find a productive hill to die on.

techorange 2y ago
Yeah, it's going to be an uphill battle convincing me to go through and talk to my co-workers to convince them this is something we should do, then change all of my branches back, against the defaults of most git providers. All for?
- peterhadlaw 2y ago
  I'm saying get the git providers to change the default back too.
  - techorange 2y ago
    If you're going to convince me that you're "anti-woke" suggestions are better than the "woke" suggestions that got us here in the first place, do so in the traditional way. Make an argument for why moving back to master makes substantive improvements in my workflow as a developer and not because you find it aesthetically concerning. And why it is financially beneficial for the globe to spend the engineer-years it would take to make this change. Also, I don't know that I'm convinced that 'master' in this scenario is more descriptive than 'main'.
    - peterhadlaw 2y ago
      The change originally was never about developer experience.
      - techorange 2y ago
        This is sort of the inverse of the sunk cost fallacy. We are where we are, if we want to move back, it's not implicitly rational to move back solely for the opposite reason that we moved forward. Moving back has additional costs, it doesn't simply undo the costs of moving forward.
  - nobankai 2y ago
    Why? To make people type more letters and waste their employer's time? For the record; I still use master branch for personal projects. But trying to impose it on anyone else is madman-levels of obsession that you might want to work out with a therapist. It simply does not matter to anyone with actually relevant priorities.
    - peterhadlaw 2y ago
      It wasn't obsessive to change it in the first place?
      - nobankai 2y ago
        Not really, "master" is about as indistinct of a term as "merge" and "rebase" are. There are huge amounts of git ergononics that can be improved and master branch is one of them. If it wasn't for muscle memory and my bash aliases, I'd be using main too. Get a life and stop bitching about default environment variables, it's a huge red-flag to employers.
        peterhadlaw 2y ago
        We aren't going to rehash the whole history here and it's disingenuous to try discussing the accuracy / pertinence of the word master here when that wasn't what originated the change in the first place.
        clipsy 2y ago
        If you can't formulate an argument as to why "master" is meaningfully better than "main", you are no better than the culture warriors who insisted on changing it in the first place.
        peterhadlaw 2y ago
        How/why to justify something that was unjustified in the first place?

techorange 2y ago

Yeah, it's going to be an uphill battle convincing me to go through and talk to my co-workers to convince them this is something we should do, then change all of my branches back, against the defaults of most git providers. All for?

peterhadlaw 2y ago
I'm saying get the git providers to change the default back too.
- techorange 2y ago
  If you're going to convince me that you're "anti-woke" suggestions are better than the "woke" suggestions that got us here in the first place, do so in the traditional way. Make an argument for why moving back to master makes substantive improvements in my workflow as a developer and not because you find it aesthetically concerning. And why it is financially beneficial for the globe to spend the engineer-years it would take to make this change. Also, I don't know that I'm convinced that 'master' in this scenario is more descriptive than 'main'.
  - peterhadlaw 2y ago
    The change originally was never about developer experience.
    - techorange 2y ago
      This is sort of the inverse of the sunk cost fallacy. We are where we are, if we want to move back, it's not implicitly rational to move back solely for the opposite reason that we moved forward. Moving back has additional costs, it doesn't simply undo the costs of moving forward.
- nobankai 2y ago
  Why? To make people type more letters and waste their employer's time? For the record; I still use master branch for personal projects. But trying to impose it on anyone else is madman-levels of obsession that you might want to work out with a therapist. It simply does not matter to anyone with actually relevant priorities.
  - peterhadlaw 2y ago
    It wasn't obsessive to change it in the first place?
    - nobankai 2y ago
      Not really, "master" is about as indistinct of a term as "merge" and "rebase" are. There are huge amounts of git ergononics that can be improved and master branch is one of them. If it wasn't for muscle memory and my bash aliases, I'd be using main too. Get a life and stop bitching about default environment variables, it's a huge red-flag to employers.
      - peterhadlaw 2y ago
        We aren't going to rehash the whole history here and it's disingenuous to try discussing the accuracy / pertinence of the word master here when that wasn't what originated the change in the first place.
        clipsy 2y ago
        If you can't formulate an argument as to why "master" is meaningfully better than "main", you are no better than the culture warriors who insisted on changing it in the first place.
        peterhadlaw 2y ago
        How/why to justify something that was unjustified in the first place?