
How to easily rename Git master branch to main - ggerritsen
https://medium.com/@ggerritsen/rename-git-master-to-main-1af5669f041a
======
pims
In the context of Git, "master" is not used in the sense of a master/slave
relationship but as a master copy. Are you hoping for a blanket ban of the
word "master" regardless of the context?

~~~
ggerritsen
I'm mainly hoping to rid our technical vocabulary of non-inclusive terms, like
master/slave, based on [https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-
terminology-00.html#r...](https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-
terminology-00.html#rfc.section.1.1.1)

~~~
pims
Again, in the context of Git, "master" is not used as in master/slave. Words
can have different meanings in different contexts. Should chess players stop
using "master" for their titles? Should the music industry stop calling
"master" the initial recording of an album that will get replicated?

~~~
ggerritsen
I don't think chess grandmasters should be necessarily named differently,
though having a gender-neutral term would be better. Not sure about the master
used in the music industry.

Do you know where 'master' originates from in the context of Git?

~~~
maushu
Yes, Petr Baudis decided on that name (and also "upstream"). [1]

He regrets it now because of his lack of English language knowledge at the
time and that "main" makes more sense but he originally based it on the
"master copy" concept.

I personally don't understand why people decided on this hill to die on. There
are much better targets like database master-slave replication.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441](https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441)

~~~
ggerritsen
Ah interesting, thanks!

It seems then that master doesn't seem like a very loaded word in the context
of git. Even so, changing it would then not be very impactful as well (not
counting any CI/CD or other config that relies on the master branch name).

~~~
BraveTea
I think this discussion raises several interesting questions, two of which:
“when is vocabulary non-inclusive?”, and “should vocabulary be changed
accordingly even if the word doesn’t have an offensive origin?”. I have played
and replayed several debates on the latter in my head over the last 24 hours
and it always comes down to someone arguing “why not?” with the counter
argument being “where does it end?”. To be honest I do not believe there to be
a correct answer to these questions, and certainly not an answer that will
last for more than a couple of years, maybe a decade. My personal belief is
that inaction born from fear is always worse than action sprung from kindness
(yes history has proven me wrong on multiple terrible occasions, I know) so I
would say, change it, for a better world starts with the first step.

~~~
pims
Not renaming the default branch of your version control system is not
inaction. You should first ask: does it make sense and does it accomplish
anything? While the cause is just, you still have the right to nuance your
thoughts and actions, and not decide to ban words "just in case".

Let's be honest, the world isn't going to be better because the default branch
of git is called main instead of master, but it will probably be slightly
worse if you impoverish the language of hundreds of millions of people, which
also happens to be the main international language.

As maushu said above there are much more meaningful targets.

