Comment on If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"?

Fades@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Honestly, while the controversy is incredibly stupid, it’s not something to get worked up about. Not good for your heart 😜

  You don’t have to relabel anything, just keep using old names for old stuff and maybe consider switching to main for your next GitHub project? It’s honestly not that big of a deal.

  source

  • ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It’s all good and well until you start working in a repo that has both master and main branches for some reason, and it is not clear which is actually the master/main branch.

    source

    • MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Then you’re working in an idiotic repo. You could just as well have have a master and an actual_master branch. Similar idiocy.

      source

      • ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It only takes one person to fuck it up. I agree it’s stupid, but introducing a conflicting standard increases the chances of someone fucking it up in the name of progressiveness

        source
      • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        A place I used to work at had that… The corp had rolled out a non-delete policy with something akin to *master, so when someone made a `abrv_master’ branch it got protected and couldn’t be deleted anymore.

        source
  • Paraponera_clavata@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    This

    source
  • yogsototh@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I work for s company that suddenly asked to rename a lot of stuff. This had consequences. It cost time, money, and created a disconnect between internal to the dev vocabulary that couldn’t be changed easily and user facing vocabulary. Also we were lucky but this could gave broken some long used API that we are proud not to version because the policy we have internally is “we will NEVER break the API”. And for 8 years we didn’t.

    source

    • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That’s why I said to not rename existing stuff, but to consider changing default names for new things. Or don’t. It’s not the end of the world.

      source
• Sinthesis@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  unfair treatment.

  We’re talking about slavery here.

  sick of having to relabel

  It’s not that hard…to be accommodating.

  divorced from the social issues

  from your point of view

  the code doesn’t care

  You’re right. Call it a controller and agent. I know naming is hard, but we’re smart enough to apply our lexicon.

  never use the words master or slave ever again? What’s next??

  Ah, the slippery slope fallacy.

  We still use master over main

  The default for repositories on GitHub has been main. You would have had to put in effort to change it to something else. You’re a stick in the mud.

  source

  • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Fuck I don’t get your downvotes, you’re right. I get people want to vent but in the greater scheme of things having to use different words to be a smidge more inclusive isn’t that big of a deal or effort considering what some of us do to help our friends be accepted.

    source

    • warbond@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It’s so weird that so many people are calling being accommodating in such a small way “performative” or whatever! I think some people just can’t handle change and blame others for it.

      source

      • orrk@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        or it’s just literally performative and doesn’t actually change anything about the realities of being POC in America other than making (ironically) a bunch of white people feel good about themselves.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Tyoda@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The default for git repositories is still master. Not to be the “real programmers only use CLI” guy, but I feel like git init isn’t too hipster.

    source

    • Sinthesis@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      …which you get a multiline message telling you to change your ways (Linus doesn’t break UX)…every time you init…weird.

      $ git init
      hint: Using 'master' as the name for the initial branch. This default branch name
      hint: is subject to change. To configure the initial branch name to use in all
      hint: of your new repositories, which will suppress this warning, call:
      hint:
      hint: 	git config --global init.defaultBranch <name>
      hint:
      hint: Names commonly chosen instead of 'master' are 'main', 'trunk' and
      hint: 'development'. The just-created branch can be renamed via this command:
      hint:
      hint: 	git branch -m <name>
      

      source

      • Tyoda@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Gonna be honest, I don’t think I ever read that. I think I usually just do git status immediately after to see if all’s well.

        source
    • femtech@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The default has been main for awhile.

      This is the case in our current version of git (git version 2.28. 0). As of October 1, 2020, any new repository you create on GitHub.com will use main as the default branch.

      March 2021 for gitlab

      source

      • Tyoda@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Still the default in git.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Phoenix3875@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The problem with these token activism is that it’s hollow in content. The intent might be good, but the action is almost pure virtue signalling.

  Slavoj Zizek pointed out in multiple interviews that there’s a pervert self-reflectiveness in the self-censorship: privileged people “enjoyed” being guilty of their privilege, so it’s more about themselves rather than the people they claim to represent. “Sorry, but you were naive and unaware of people being racist when they use these words, so let me stop them and now you are protected (by me) in an inclusive atmosphere.”

  A related radical freedom situation as an inverse to the above is that when friends get really close, even using racist slurs is treated as a representation of intimacy, rather than racism. In an ideal world, the context in the public discourse would be so strong that even racist words lose their racist meaning (“oh, so you are joking as well”) rather than the opposite (assuming there’s ubiquitous racism in the use of a word, even when there’s clearly none).

  Another critique is that it presents itself as a substitute of real solutions. Instead of addressing real problems, it provides a simple “everyday” solution, very much similar to the recycling movement. Of course we need to recycle, but we should be aware that it’s not a substitute of radical real actions (e.g. stopping the big oil).

  source
• Rentlar@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Right? I get that langauge evolves and things go in and out of fashion, but this self-censoring for things completely unrelated to the original or derogatory meanings is kind of a pointless exercise to me.

  source
• SpaceCadet@feddit.nl ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  master over main

  That one is the most stupid one too, because master in git doesn’t even refer to a master/slave relationship. It refers to a different meaning of the word master, namely “an original from which copies can be made”, as in master recording or master key. And that’s how it’s used in git: any new branches are derived from master. Main just does not have the same nuance, because it does not imply a relationship between the branches, just that it’s somehow more important than the others.

  But of course, the real reason it was changed is because it’s easier to give in to the crazies who demand this than to fight them.

  source

  • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Is it not the main working branch? Git is a system of change not just recording change. When you start a new project, do you open a new branch or creat a whole new repository? That’s not rhetorical I’m genuinely curious.

    source

    • SpaceCadet@feddit.nl ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Is it not the main working branch

      No it is not. On large distributed projects for which git was designed, you typically don’t directly work on main/master but you create a working branch to do your changes, and when they are ready you merge them to main/master.

      There are many types of git workflows, but main/master usually contains the code that is deployed to production or the latest stable release and not some work in progress.

      When you start a new project, do you open a new branch or create a whole new repository?

      You have to define “project” for that.

      • Is your project a change to existing code -> new branch, merge to main/master when done
      • Is your project something new that stands entirely on its own? -> new repository

      source

      • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Ah we develop the same way. There’s testing then staging then prod is final review and is then finally merged to Main after documentation. Main branch is protected and merges are gated by review. There’s no need for master terminology there.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • PlexSheep@infosec.pub ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        In fact, many projects forbid pushing to master entirely and only allow reviewed merging to the master. Then, every time the master changes, a new release of the software is made (either manually or automatically with CI/CD)

        source
    • orrk@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      you don’t work on main/master, you make a branch to work in, and then merge your changes back into master/main

      source

      • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Also with git, respectfully, I can do whatever the fuck I want. That’s the point of git. If I want to branch my way down to a stack overflow due to running out of free memory my system will very happily let me do that.

        source
• elephantium@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I’m a dev, and I’m the opposite. At my work, we use main over master. I thought it was a little silly when we first switched, but now I’m used to it. It’s an arbitrary label anyway – could easily use trunk/branch from SVN or release/develop or any number of other labels to keep track of code.

  Hell, we got a new dev on the team a month or two ago, and he tends to name things ‘feat/do-the-thing’ instead of ‘feature/make-it-go’.

  It’s not as big a deal as people online make it out to be.

  source
• Sinthesis@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  for they are simply descriptive labels.

  source
• pop@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  No one told you to throw away anything. If it works for you then go wild. No one else cares what you do in private or a with your “dev friends”.

  I for one love shorts words to get meaning across. “main” was just sweet, the social issue thing was a good to have.

  source