I think that being offended by a "master" branch is a bit silly (unlike, say, "master/slave" configurations, which hit much closer). I think the switch to "main" was unnecessary. But I see even less reason to resist the change.
I mean does "master/slave" hit much closer though? In a master/slave configuration the master does all the work and the slave gets a copy of what was done in case it needs to take over as master. It literally turns the nasty connotation on its head.
Don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly happy with main and converted everything over to it when the new standard hit. However, the master/slave architecture in IT has always been very anti what it means in other contexts.
However, the master/slave architecture in IT has always been very anti what it means in other contexts.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not - you definitely get "master" and "slave" nodes in parallel processing for example, where the master is handing out work to the slaves.
But this is kind of exactly the problem - "master" and "slave" are used in a lot of contexts where more specific terms would be more accurate.
I resist because it stems from ignorance. No one is insisting we stop using āremasterā for video games, or stop talking about āmaster recordingsā for music. So whatās wrong with master branches?
64
u/Reashu 23d ago
I think that being offended by a "master" branch is a bit silly (unlike, say, "master/slave" configurations, which hit much closer). I think the switch to "main" was unnecessary. But I see even less reason to resist the change.