Git 3.0 Defaults to "main" Branch Instead of "master | Hacker News Reader

Git 3.0 Defaults to "main" Branch Instead of "master

phoronix.com

49 pointsbirdculture45 comments

https://www.etymonline.com/word/main

  main(n.)

  Old English mægen (Mercian megen) "power, bodily strength; force, violent effort; strength of mind or will; efficacy; supernatural power," from Proto-Germanic *maginam "power" (source also of Old High German megin "strength, power, ability"), reconstructed to be from a suffixed form of PIE root *magh- "to be able, have power."

  The original sense of "power" is preserved in phrase might and main. Also used in Middle English for "royal power or authority" (c. 1400), "military strength" (c. 1300), "application of force" (c. 1300).

I really really wish the ecosystem had simply gone with "trunk" (which is also what Subversion had used, in addition to actually matching the metaphor in play; though, I get that some people don't consider trunk to be a branch... but it is already used in this context for "trunk-based development").

Outside of the context of the culture war, it has gotten a project or two that I've seen to really think about what they should name their branches, and how they could better describe what kind of development happens in them.

Branch names like "stable", "next", and "protobreak" are a lot more understandable than "master" or even "main."

Trunk is probably also offensive in some way to some people

I have seen dozens of hours spent on debugging issues associated with this switch. One has to wonder how much manpower went into it globally.

Is there some quantitative evidence that this made the world a better place?

I'm curious what kinds of problems took dozens of hours to fix. We had a script that was using master, and the default name of main (Github) broke things. But it wasn't a surprise, we knew it was coming, someone just forgot to adjust a script.

They just changed the script, took about 30 seconds. If you had a lot of scripts, then you could always make a master branch and use it instead of main. That would also be pretty quick to fix.

And it wasn't like when Github changed things (or now git itself will be changing) there weren't announcements. You'd have to have been living under a rock to not know about it and be taken by surprise.

One of the companies I worked for had self-hosted subversion hosting and accessing it required connecting to a VPN first. The IP address of that SVN server changed multiple times as we migrated between hardware and even VPN providers.

It's annoying, but you just dig up the new credentials, update the script to point to the right place and move on with your life. I shudder to think of the kind of environment where updating a branch name... not even a domain or IP address... would cause significant turmoil.

not your parent commenter and I have yet to have a problem with the branch name change but I could see it taking a long time to figure out. It's perfectly normal to assume branch names don't change often, specially master/main.

Abd if it took Cloudflare 3 hours to find out that a rust process was panicing and crashing, a branch name change in someone's ci/cd is less expected in the chain of probable causes and could take more time to detect.

I don't understand why there was such manufactured outrage over master branches, but not master recordings.

The terms are from different industries with different visibility.

When this became a social moment, there was a sentiment that everybody should learn to code and lots of people were being exposed to things like git, and having casual discussions about those things on social media, at meetups, etc.

It went from being an professional engineer's tool to part of a pop culture zeitgeist, where everybody could share some opinion about it.

While many people know what a "master recording" is when the phrase comes up, the number of people actively thinking about and discussing audio/studio engineering remains way smaller and has way less intersection with communities compelled to make noise about language politics.

I think the idea that there was outrage about branch naming is manufactured.

It was more that the naming was potentially offensive and cost next to nothing to change.

The people griping about it are the ones outraged.

Potentially offensive in what way?

There was outrage to be had and those who revel in it pounced.

Or databases and harddisk redundancy configurations. Or Zen masters. Or masterclass. Or a master's degree. Or mastermind.

We should get rid of all these words right?

This was always a silly change but I save two keystrokes a few times daily so I guess there's that.

I tab complete so it’s no different at all.

i use git aliases so it’s the same amount of keystrokes

i use a clicky gui so that’s another thing

This could be a great thesis topic for a Main’s degree in sociology.

It's the novlang of 1984. Its shows were our society is headed, slowly but surely.

Little bit little remove or ban the language that might be offensive to some. Twist the meaning of things to ensure that normal words become "shameful" words when used. Until people forget. Then you can reach this society were there is no contestation, no social agitation and political unrest because the concept doesn't even exist.

'main' is objectively better than 'master' because it's easier to type and easier to say. The only problem is the noxious politics associated with it.

By this logic is the branch name "1" or "a" even better?

No, because 'main' is directly related to the concept at hand, just like 'master'.

They're related via that concept of "first" (though 0 might be more apt)

I think that's a bit of a reach. Also, it's confusing to say "1 branch" or "a branch" because those words are much more ambiguous.

But you wouldn't say "a branch", you'd say "branch A" Similarly it'd be "first branch" or "branch 1", so not that ambiguous.

I like "main" just because it's a cleaner word than "master", I never really had an attachment to the word "master" in itself.

Same here. The first time I heard 'main' as a replacement name for master, I immediately used it everywhere. Easier to say for me, easier to type for me. I find the societal discussion around is absurd. But I couldn't also care less.

My favorite example of the inoffensive use of the word: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/toni-morrison-the-p...

A time capsule from a different era of tech. (And one we could return to again in the future, who knows.)

The end of an era

A little bit... a lot of people already made the switch, and a lot of people start new repos via github/gitlab instead of local anyway. I feel the argument itself is somewhat silly to begin with.

I thought this nonsense was about to go away noticed even github starting to default to master or maybe it was the terminal git. Sensoring tech words about things that happened 300 years ago is not OK

Changing defaults is an interesting definition of censorship. It's not like you can't configure it to still use a master branch if you want to.

Saying a word is bad is pretty much the definition of censorship yes. Not the context it is used, not the implications when it is used but uncategorically BAD - it just breaks my somewhat autistic brain on the principle.

PS: I have an african wife and let me tell you she has no beef with the word, she will have more beef with me talking to the cashier in a way that is too friendly

See I'd say the definition of censorship is saying a word is bad and preventing you from saying it, even if you disagree.

And git isn't preventing you from having a master branch. In fact, they're providing instructions for people who prefer that.

Making you fee like less of a person for using the word is also censorship but in a more clever mean gaslighting way than a full order :)

This seems like a you problem. I have quite a few repos made before using "main" was the default in GitHub or Git. I have not changed them, and I have never spent more than 5 seconds thinking about it, let alone worrying about being considered "less of a person" because of it.

In the spirit of genuine curiosity, who is making you feel like less of a person wrt the choice of main/master, and how are they doing that?

It sounds like you're saying that git maintainers are intending for you to feel like less of a person because you don't agree with their choice, but I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

you keep using that word but i don’t think it means what you think it means

Careful, you're almost arguing the points of "the other side" you seem to detest so much!

> Saying a word is bad is pretty much the definition of censorship yes. Not the context it is used, not the implications when it is used but uncategorically BAD

No expressing an opinion, eve ln an unqualified unconditional one, about a word is not the fee definition of censorship. Forcing others not to publish what you don't like is censorship (even if that dislike is based in context and conditions, and not unconditional opposition to a word.) Presenting an opinion is just presenting an opinion.

> it just breaks my somewhat autistic brain on the principle.

Yeah, you not liking an opinion doesn’t convert that opinion into censorship, either.

300 huh? That’s uhh that’s pretty inaccurate.

I think I'll keep my slave branches thank you very much

Reply on news.ycombinator.com