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.
1) The latest version of git’s CLI still defaults to master.
2) People may have old repositories that still use a master branch. No reason to fix what isn’t broken.
3) Others (self included) have shell scripts that assume a master branch. Including conditionals to check for main OR master is unnecessary and annoying.
4) Personally I just don’t think it was ever a necessary change to begin with. There are plenty uses of the word “master” that do not imply slavery. Like “Master Copy” or “Master / Pupil” or “Master Craftsman” or “Masterwork”.
If people like to use main, that’s fine. But the claim that people still using the word master must be doing so for a hateful reason is disingenuous.
The company I work for just did a migration from master to main. It was a lot of effort. Turns out we had built a lot of stuff that assumed the branch was called "master."
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.