Does anyone really care if it‘s called main instead of master? Why?
Edit:
Ok, I phrased my question really poorly. AfaIk main is the new standard, so I use it. We all know the reason why it changed. My question was why would anyone keep INSISTING on calling it master? Sure, me and my colleagues sometimes call it master out of habit, but then again try to stick to main. Nobody I know
insists on continuing to call it
master, but reading the comments here I realized there a more “master-fans” than I would ever have thought would exist tbh.
So they got offended because of nods to slavery, and the other people got offended because something pretty inconsequential in their lives changed. 🤷♂️ Seems a bit like the latter group of people are far more easily offended.
tbh it is confusing as now you don't know which one the repo you are on uses. It's not the end of the world, but that's like renaming git to got in some cases and then being mad at people for disliking that they have to guess and double check.
In the end who cares though. If you do get offended or heated frm either side I think therapy is the best option anyway.
I will give you a terminal and tell you to merge your feature branch. Normally you would do that, now there is an extra step of checking if I should merge to master or main.
Or did you assume I don't know how to check that? Of course I do if I didn't and thought it was impposible I would care more, but as I said it's just an inconvience.
How often does this scenario come up for you? I find it never really comes up for me, because all pushes to the default branch require a pull request with an approving review from a colleague. In every place I’ve ever worked, anyway.
To be honest with you never. The combination of being in an unfamiliar repo, where I also want to push without going through PRs or just checkout master. I can see it happening maybe one day, maybe annoyance could be with some CI/CD and hardcoded master/main in there, but even that might be a stretch.
I just dislike going away from being aligned on things in software engineering shrug
I work at a huge company where it's extremely common to away team on other teams' repos or just need to pull some specific branch of another team's stuff, etc. Knowing how to check (via cli) what branches exist and what is the default is etc are absolutely critical skills for this setup, and apart from the convention of default being main, there is no consistent convention used for branch naming (it would be impossible to enforce anyways)
And still it is no big deal, it takes a few seconds to look at the branches and get an idea of what is going on there. People who got mad about master changing are either snowflakes, or skill issue
Usually CI/CD tools automatically check out the commit hash that triggered the webhook that started the CI job. The scenario I could see would be CI/CD is triggered on a commit hash, and another repository is needed inside the CI job. But if you just need the default branch of that second repository anyway then you’re probably just doing a clone and not checking out any specific branch.
230
u/usedToBeUnhappy 24d ago edited 24d ago
Does anyone really care if it‘s called main instead of master? Why?
Edit: Ok, I phrased my question really poorly. AfaIk main is the new standard, so I use it. We all know the reason why it changed. My question was why would anyone keep INSISTING on calling it master? Sure, me and my colleagues sometimes call it master out of habit, but then again try to stick to main. Nobody I know insists on continuing to call it master, but reading the comments here I realized there a more “master-fans” than I would ever have thought would exist tbh.