6 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt wasn't obsessive to change it in the first place?
- nobankai 2y agoNot 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 agoWe 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 agoIf 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 agoHow/why to justify something that was unjustified in the first place?
- clipsy 2y agoI'm not asking you to justify something that was unjustified in the first place -- I'm asking you to justify what you're asking people to do now. Why is it worth everyone's time and effort to migrate back to using "master" rather than "main"?
- peterhadlaw 2y agoTo remove the political prejudice injected into it.
- nobankai 2y agoAsk Linus Torvalds.