Comment on If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"?
SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 2 months agomaster 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.
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 2 months ago
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.
You have to define “project” for that.
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 2 months ago
Nobody said there is a need, you could call it foo or bar and it would still work. It just that master more accurately describes what it is. Main for example does not describe a derivative relationship, master does.
Also, master in this context is totally unrelated to slavery so I could also just as easily say that there was no need to replace the existing terminology either. It doesn’t solve any real world problems of historic or currently existing slavery, and it doesn’t make anyone’s life better. The only reasons why it was done were appeasement and virtue signalling.
Omniraptor@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Wait huge? Shouldn’t Prod be the last place any changes go ?
PlexSheep@infosec.pub 2 months 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)
orrk@lemmy.world 2 months ago
you don’t work on main/master, you make a branch to work in, and then merge your changes back into master/main
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 2 months 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.