loading...

re: Replacing master in git VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

Super great post. I think this hits on all of it, and yeah the bitkeeper history is there, but also the existence of master/slave terminology in software in general sort of helps imply that even if git stopped explicitly saying “slave”.

Software needs to be flexible and evolve. It’s kind of the whole point.

 

I have never heard "slave" in discussions about source control ever; especially git. At least not until we decided we needed to change it.

I always thought of master as "law and gospel" in terms of this is the source of truth for the repository. Where the word originates or how it was used in what git was "built from" is not relevant, language changes over time.

The problem with lots of the suggestions, "unstable", "production", etc. They are all specific use cases for specific workflows. Master is not specific to anything but clearly states what the branch is for. Branching strategies in source control is an entire religion by itself.

I do think that "principle" as suggested in the OP is better... or "main", "root", "default"... but I still feel it is unnecessary to move away from a master branch. I won't enumerate all of the practical problems with moving away from master as many others already did a great job at that.

 

Exactly, our goal should be to change norms to make people feel more welcomed and to have a more inclusive environment. This is the least we can do.
In terms of low-hanging fruit, I think it doesn't get any easier.

Might not be much, might not do a whole lot, it's certainly not the last thing we should do, but it's so easy and effortless that it should be a no-brainer.

Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more

code of conduct - report abuse