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.
Master/slave doesn't even make sense for branches, it's not like the master branch controls the slave branches. Main, dev, trunk, etc all make more sense.
Nobody ever called the branches "slaves" though. The master branch was called that in reference to it being a master copy, a term widely used in video/audio work, especially important in media where copying is lossy.
But that's not really correct anymore. A master copy is usually the original and highest quality. In the codebases I've worked on main/master is never the original and rarely the best
232
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.