It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months 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.

    • MummifiedClient5000
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months 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.

      • ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months 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. Needless to say I killed off the main branch that someone one had tried to make to replace the master branch.

      • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months 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.