So creating a new repo on GitHub, you get a set of getting started steps. They changed the default branchname to “main” from “master” due to its connotations with slavery.
When I create a new repo now, the initial getting started steps recommend creating a branch named “master” as opposed to “main” as it was a while ago.
It’s especially weird since the line git branch -M master is completely unnecessary, since git init still sets you up with a “master” branch.
Disclaimer: I have a bunch of private repos, and my default branchnames are pretty much all “master”.
Is this a recent change?
Edit: Mystery solved, my default branchname is “master”. Thanks [email protected] !
You must log in or register to comment.
I honestly never saw a problem with master / slave, nor with whitelist / blacklist. It’s the same as killing children, forking children, etc, it’s computer terminology and not everything means that bad thing that you personally want it to mean.
I’m not politically correct, I live in a real world. Calling a git repository different really isn’t doing shit against slavery and it pisses me off that people are going to down vote me on their slavery built iPhone because apparently I like naughty words and you apparently like slavery.
You want to stop racism? Then stop meddling with computer terminology and go out there and actually do something real.
I appreciate your intense emotion about the topic of changing terminology. It’s hard to wrangle in our feelings when things change.
I completely agree with your last statement. What have you done to accomplish that?
If you’re trying to appear sassy at least try and understand the point.
I’m not virtue signalling with PRETENDING to fight racism by bitching about words I only partially understand. I fight racism by simply treating everyone the same, I simply don’t give a damn about skin color, never have. Lead by example.
So what have you done?
That’s not fighting racism. Being not racist isn’t the same as being anti racist.
For example, do you think by existing in a capitalist society you’re also fighting socialism? How many wars are you winning in your head by doing nothing?
You’re doing so little that you can’t even stop using words that bother people, even when they said it bothers them.
You have a blessed and isolated life if there are zero words that can cause you emotional harm. This doesn’t mean you’re strong, it means you’re privileged. White privilege, in fact.
As for what I do? I give interviews to minority candidates when when their resume isn’t great. And it’s been a boon for my company because it turns out they’re really talented, but bad at resumes. I also spend time educating my fellow minimally melanated morons on the concept of systemic racism, and why simply doing nothing is not the same as being not racist. Hence we’re here.
God I wish. The change to “main” was pointless and unnecessary. It’s almost like people want to find problems when there aren’t any.
I prefer main simply because it faster to type. I propose main branches be renamed to “m”
How about trunk to imply how to use it
My main branch is called
HEAD.You monster.
Honestly I feel like people who had an issue with this were just as much making an issue out of nothing. I personally also think that “master” is just as much a normal and valid name as “main”, and to me the rename kinda felt like performative bullshit. But at the same time it’s just a name, if it makes people happy I don’t really care either. Nowadays I tend to use main, but it’s not something I really pay attention to.
I guess masterpieces are now mainpieces
Americans and their silly performative outrage
A form of art they have main-ered.
(FYI I didn’t make this and I believe it’s fake but honestly it’s hard to tell)
As another data point I just set one up yesterday and it gave me a main branch, not master.
What’s your default branch name for the user you’re logged in as: https://github.com/settings/repositories
For me this setting is
mainand I created a new repo, and the steps all include themainbranch and notmaster.Well, that is embarassing. It’s master.
I don’t remember setting this, but then again, I don’t remember a lot of things. Thanks!
Is it an old setup? Git won’t change existing configs.
Main is more concise and less problematic. A win all around.
is it though?
I treat the master branch as the master record. it’s the branch all other branches are made from.
calling it main is overly generic. main to what? the repo? the main feature being worked on? are there multiple mains like in mains voltages?
master seems far more concise. when you think of it like a stateful record.
plus all my pipelines are configured to use master. I would have to rewrite 70+ pipelines just to convert to main.
not worth it.
The only statement in your ridiculous rant that has any validity is that of your legacy pipeline configurations. But pipelines need to be updated and validated semi-regularly and should be generalized to begin with, so it’s not really any good point that your legacy pipelines cannot handle a default branch name change like modern pipelines should.
Swap main and master in your comment and it reads the exact same with all the same shallow justifications.
The only statement in your ridiculous rant that has any validity
Thanks! It sure makes me want to have a civil discussion with someone who belittles my opinion and reduces it by calling it a “rant”.
I’ll extend you the same courtesy as you have me.
But pipelines need to be updated and validated semi-regularly…
Not if you’re doing it right. sad shitty devs hack together pipelines that require constant maintenance. I’ve got pipelines that have worked flawlessly for over 7 years yet other projects I don’t own are constantly running into problems deploying because their pipelines were “configured for last release”.
…and should be generalized to begin with,…
Wrong again. Pipelines do the thing they are supposed to do and do it extremely well. are you sure you know what you’re talking about?
…so it’s not really any good point that your legacy pipelines cannot handle a default branch name change like modern pipelines should.
yeah fuck me for creating a pipeline for each of my environments that have dedicated branches. fuck me for setting a standard and adhering to that standard.
if you need to switch your branch on your pipeline regularly you’re not following proper branching strategies.
Swap main and master in your comment and it reads the exact same with all the same shallow justifications.
you may be right, but the same could be said for literally any comparative opinion.
lmao nothing you’ve said has anything to do with “Main is more concise and less problematic”. Just because you created more work for yourself by having 70+ pipelines that need to be rewritten for a branch name change doesn’t mean it’s less concise or more problematic. It means you messed up by not having a pipeline capable of such a basic feature – generalized targets with a separation of concerns. Standards change, requirements change, so do build pipelines. Being stubborn is not a reason against changing colloquial terms out of respect and growth in understanding.
When’s the time you changed branch names after creation? Master to main is the only time for a lot of devs
