DEV Community

Discussion on: Github is replacing the word master to avoid slavery references. Deal with it.

Collapse
 
dealloc profile image
Wannes Gennar

I'm personally not a fan.
For one, I'm expecting quite a few things to break when you remove something that's expected to be present in 90% of all Git repositories.
Also, if you're associating the word "master" with slavery in any context (because honestly, what's the link between version control and slavery?) then you might have more problems than renaming it to "main" can fix for you.

If it comes through, will I start renaming "main" to "master" in my own repositories? Of course not, I'm not even complaining about the rename itself, had Github announced this a year ago for the reason of it being "simpler" or whatever it probably would've encountered pushback as well.

But where do you stop, why don't we just remove the word "master" from the English language altogether? Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but I have literally ZERO link between the word "master" and slavery.

Collapse
 
ludamillion profile image
Luke Inglis

I'm expecting quite a few things to break when you remove something that's expected to be present in 90% of all Git repositories.

While that's a valid concern I think It's not as big of a deal as it might seem. For one thing if you are talking about tools and scripts if you can just search and replace s/master/main/g than your tools/scripts are probably brittle.

Collapse
 
stevetaylor profile image
Steve Taylor

Itโ€™s not that simple. Many systems that integrate with git (e.g. CI/CD) assume master is the default branch.

Thread Thread
 
ludamillion profile image
Luke Inglis

I would hope that any those systems arenโ€™t so inflexible as to not allow you to specify the name of the default branch on configuration

Thread Thread
 
dandv profile image
Dan Dascalescu • Edited

Why do that work at all? Who does it help?