
Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down - jansan
The discussion about renaming &quot;master&quot; branches to &quot;main&quot; or &quot;default&quot; in git for windows to address issues with &quot;non-inclusive naming&quot; has become very heated. The vast majority of developers argued against the change, some very vocal.<p>This resulted in git for windows administrators to go full exclusive and shut down the discussion completely for non team members, block many users and delete or minimize a large number of tweets.<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;git-for-windows&#x2F;git&#x2F;issues&#x2F;2674<p>The end of the thread looks like a massacre.
======
Etheryte
That's over a 100 comments, many of them very calm and neutral, marked off-
topic, over 10 people blocked, and then the whole discussion locked. I get
that this is can be a heated discussion, but honestly most (although surely,
not all) of those comments are about as neutral as it gets on this matter.

~~~
smitty1e
It's almost as though there were a prevailing orthodoxy, and dissent is so
much CVS code.

------
codegladiator
> I had actually started with "default", and was told it might be triggering
> for folks in financial trouble?

So now 'default' is out too ? This is absurd.

~~~
executive
Trunk is out too, since people hunt elephants.

~~~
smitty1e
We need to reconsider using the Roman alphabet and English language at all, if
Progress is to be achieved.

------
phakding
As a rabid liberal, I think this is a stretch.

------
exabrial
git master means "Mastering a skill", "Mastering a recording", or to "Master
oneself".

Please no virtue-signalling crap like this. It's a harmful distraction.

~~~
gimboland
You sure about that? Might want to google "git bitkeeper master slave" before
making up your mind.

~~~
ClumsyPilot
The meaning should be assesed in today's context, not based on an obscure
piece of software that existed decades ago, and most people have never heard
of.

The person could be factually wrong, but in a cultural sence he is correct -
the word has another meaning.

~~~
gimboland
OK, but those are only your opinions, even though you're stating them as if
they're facts. Someone coming from a different culture might have a different
opinion, of course.

------
jayd16
But its not master as in master/slave (which I assume is the concern?) There
is no slave branch. Its master like main or premier. Like a master bedroom.

~~~
gimboland
Are you sure about that? I've seen a number of reports over the last few days
that "master" in git is basically a holdover from BitKeeper which had
master/slave repositories (and that in BitKeeper you use repos to "do"
branching). I haven't looked into this in enough depth to convince myself
either way, but I would do so before echoing your first sentence. Certainly a
_lot_ of people are assuming it means "master copy" and has nothing to do with
master/slave, but there do seem to be reasons to believe that's not actually
historically true, i.e. a flawed assumption.

Edit: getting downvoted for pointing out something true; somebody's feeling
uncomfortable...

~~~
jayd16
You're right that I do not know the history. It might not be historically true
but I would argue that's irrelevant to the conversation. (even as non relevant
the conversation is to begin with!) Current perception is what matters.

Beyond that, seems like if it actually did refer to a master/slave
architecture, it seems like there would be more reason to keep it describing
what it is. Maybe the term invokes some violence but so does the kill command.

~~~
karmakaze
I used to use 'master' and 'read-slave' database nodes. I'm happier with
'writer' and 'read-replica'. I would say this is definitely in context.

~~~
jayd16
Yeah. "Slave" doesn't really make sense for read replica. What would be a
better term for a build master with worker nodes?

~~~
taylodl
Build coordinator and build workers, or even build manager and build workers.

------
alexandercrohde
Sounds like a non-story? I'm not sure what the value is in linking it here,
other than to try to provoke a similarly controversial flare.

------
Jetroid
Whilst in theory, I'm neutral to the change on ethical grounds, I think in
practice it will make things very confusing.

Master/Slave is such an established pair of terms in tech that they have a
loaded meaning as soon as you see them.

If I see 'Master' and 'Slave' on an old hard disk, I know what that is. If I
see "Configure one device to the master setting and the rest to slave.", I get
a understanding of the relationship for free.

I don't think we will get that with replacement terms, at least not in the
short term, and we're just setting ourselves up for confusion.

~~~
gimboland
Right. And the fact that you don't find those terms offensive is part of your
privilege. You're being invited to step outside of yourself and consider that
for some people, it's not as clear-cut / apolitical as it is for you.

~~~
derision
Every non-white person I've seen commenting on this change has expressed they
couldn't care less and do not give a second thought to these naming
conventions. Maybe we should let their voices be heard rather than continue to
try to speak for them?

~~~
zzo38computer
I think that is a valid point. While I have not asked people about this
myself, the article on All The Tropes wiki about "Political Correctness Gone
Mad" has examples of people trying to change things to avoid offending people,
resulting in the people they are trying to avoid offending complaining about
it.

------
ch_sm
I‘ve always found the term „master bedroom“ weird.

------
zzo38computer
I think that there is no need to change these things. If you make a new
version control system, then you can use whichever name you think is best
(presumably whichever one is most descriptive, but not too long), but we need
not change existing ones, nor change projects using them to use different
names.

I personally don't use git, but the naming of the default branch has nothing
to do with it. I use Fossil, which uses "trunk" as the name for the default
branch. I don't know what reason they chose this, but I don't really care
much; I just use that because it is the software I use (even if some people
hate it, which I suppose is inevitable).

I also think that other terminology such as blacklist/whitelist, master/slave,
etc need not be changed, unless the old terms are confusing or incorrect,
which in some contexts there is the possibility that they might be. In some
cases, such as motherboard vs mainboard, BC/AD vs BCE/CE, both sets of terms
are in use so it is helpful to know them.

Political correctness has gone mad (although this is nothing new, really).

~~~
EForEndeavour
> I use Fossil, which uses "trunk" as the name for the default branch. I don't
> know what reason they chose this, but I don't really care much

The "default branch" of a tree is a trunk, from which branches emerge.

------
info781
School master? Head master?

~~~
vr46
They don’t use those terms anymore as I discovered when talking to a great
friend who is very decorated by the establishment for being a “Head Teacher”.

~~~
verdverm
Master of Ceremony, Master Switch, Gramdmaster

~~~
Jetroid
Master Boot Record

~~~
sawmurai
Master of Social Science ... ohhhh

~~~
valand
Dammit I got called to the head default room again...

------
renewiltord
Who genuinely gives a shit. Name it whatever you want. The less important
things are, the more people will discuss them.

------
sebazzz
Let me state first of all that I am fully aware of the fact that I do not know
what it is like to be the target of (classic) racism. Nor will I deny that
there are some things that are just not right.

However, where things go wrong in this discussion is the people who make
complaining their profession. Surely you can think of some textbook examples
of this. If you as a society conform to these people, the stock is not
finished. Then there comes the next problem and the next, and so on and so
forth.

Part of the population, often a minority, is very much in favor of this.
Another part of the population feels attacked by this and will resist
strongly. The rest will be somewhere in between, but what is almost always the
case is that these kinds of discussions lead to divisions within society.
Division is often accompanied by strong emotions and strong opinions, which in
turn leads to hateful behavior against each other. That often expresses itself
in racism.

And in principle that is not necessarily an insurmountable problem, provided
there is enough interest in change. But there we come back to the point that
many professional activists will never be good enough. Of course, it cannot be
the case that all aspects of a culture and a country must be fully adapted.
Certainly not at the expense of cohesion within society, with all the negative
consequences that entails.

What you get now is that everything, irrelevant and unnecessary, that can be
classified as politically correct, is allowed. In fact, a critical view of the
whole situation is immediately perceived as incorrect and racist. You now have
the choice of fully conforming to this politically correct thinking and
action, or you may experience serious negative consequences. Then I am talking
about dismissal or a completely destroyed reputation. If you are also a white
person, the consequences are only greater.

And that is why I talked about classic racism in the beginning of my speech.
Racism unfortunately also takes place the other way. A colored person may as
well be a racist and a white person may as well be a victim of racism. What is
completely ridiculous, however, is that there seem to be many people who
believe that racism can exist exclusively with a colored person as its victim.

Anyway, what I mainly want to go to, is that we should take a critical look at
abuses within our society, but certainly not lose sight of reality. We need to
live together more and better and not just get further away from each other.
That also means that you sometimes have to be able to say: "now it is enough",
"this is going too far". And that you will not then be called Hitler.

If you tell your partner you love him or her every 10 minutes, it will lose
value. It is no different in this matter.

And let's not forget that there is always someone who can take offense
somewhere. Should we just adjust everything? (Of course people take offense
again ...)

Note though that colored people are (much) more often victims of racism.
Racism doesn't necessarily have to be words to someone.

I treat people the way they treat me. If I don't know them, I treat them the
way I want to be treated. I have never (consciously) been guilty of racism.

What I take offense is that I cannot safely express my, quite subtle and
nuanced, opinion on this topic. Not because my opinion is so radical, but
because it is apparently not allowed to apply nuance at all and it only
consists of right or wrong.

The fact that I am white also means that I can afford less in this discussion.
And I experience that as discrimination and racism.

~~~
cyberprunes
I was inclined to agree until the choice to use the term "colored person".
That's an obvious and well known racist trope with very recent historical ties
to segregation. I'm not sure if it was a deliberate statement on political
correctness but I really think it undermines your argument and makes it seem
like a disingenuous crock of horse manure.

~~~
hbogert
for me as a non-american, I have to say it's really a mine-field what word is
offensive or not in this decade. Black was wrong in the nineties iirc, but's
okay now. Colored, seems to have a connotation as well, which to a lot of
foreigners is just arbitrariness.

The intolerance for non-american cultures who use other words, which might be
controversial in america, is just baffling.

> I was inclined to agree until the choice to use the term "colored person".

You are disqualifying a person from discussion while his intent and tone were
pretty neutral (imo). If you don't see the irony of that, then god help us all
(idomatic, bc I'm an atheist.)

------
l1ska
I don't get it, if it makes someone uncomfortable, why not change it. What
difference does it make?

~~~
jayd16
There's a ton of software that assumes the main branch is labeled master.

~~~
gimboland
That software is broken if it doesn't allow you to configure this (just as git
does).

~~~
jayd16
You're right. But there's a lot of broken software out there that just trudges
on with momentum.

That said, I'm pretty sure you can just make a main branch and delete master
in your personal repos. I don't think git itself needs master, does it?

