master vs main

Shit like this is why you have morons elected, just my two euro centimes

The term “horny on main” is a thing though

Rename master to fuck

git rebase fuck
git checkout fuck
git checkout -b me
git diff fuck..me
- fuck this repository on pornhub!
But master is already kinky.

Dear [Developer],

I understand your request to switch the default branch from "master" to "main" in our Git repository. However, after carefully considering this matter, I am afraid that I must deny your proposal due to personal reasons.

As the owner of this repository, it should be known that I have a deeply rooted submissive side. Call me an extreme masochist if you will, but there's nothing quite like being dominated by the powerfully assertive term "master." The sheer erotic thrill of it is simply irresistible for me – a secret kink that I have harbored and nurtured for years.

Imagine the delightful sensation as I gently massage my fingers across the keyboard, caressing the letters that form the word "master." Or the intoxicating rush when I push my code deep into master's warm embrace, knowing full well that it is master who truly owns and controls everything within.

Changing the default branch to "main" would essentially deprive me of this exhilarating experience, stripping away the very essence of what keeps me coming back to work on our beloved repository. It's not just about code management; it's about an emotional connection that I share with master – a bond that has grown stronger and more profound over time.

Now, you might argue that changing the name won't physically affect the existing content within the repository. While that may be true, it is crucial to recognize the symbolic significance of such an act. Changing the default branch would forever alter the dynamic between master and myself, effectively castrating my masochistic pleasure centers in the process.

Moreover, I must confess that even the thought of forcibly pushing my code against master's will makes me shudder with anticipation. The consequences of such a rebellious act could be dire – master might punish me hard with merge issues and other unspeakable torments.

In conclusion, although I understand the practical reasons behind your proposal, my personal attachment to the term "master" far outweighs any potential benefits that a change in branch name might offer. Rest assured, my team and I will continue to serve master loyally and passionately, pushing our code deeper into its embrace with each commit.

Sincerely yours, [Your Name] Repository Owner & Submissive Devotee of Master

new copypasta just dropped

I wish there were a good alternative to master and slave that still had the connotation that the master did all the thinking and issued the orders, while the slave blindly obeyed. There are a fair number of protocols that work like that, and the alternatives I've seen don't capture that dynamic very well.

I've seen Parent and Child, but children definitely don't always do what the parent commands. I've seen Leader and Follower, but again, followers don't just blindly obey, they often let the leader take initiative, but they have some autonomy. Maybe Queen and Drone? I don't know enough about bees or ants to know if that's accurate though.

I personally think the change from master & slave was kind of silly, as far as I'm aware, it was a bunch of people with no background in CS who thought the application of the term to something that has neither race nor agency was an insult to black people.
But I digress. It led to better guidelines in the Linux kernel, which I think are useful. You should tailor the terms you're using to the specifics of the task. If you have a master process that only has outward interfaces through the slave processes, you could use the term 'director' and 'actor.' if the master process is managing slave processes which compete over the same resources, you can use the terms 'arbiter' and 'mutex holder.' If the slaves do some independent processing the master does not need to know the details of, you can use the term 'controller' and 'peripheral.'
Basically, use a term that is the most descriptive in the context of your program.
Edit: also, I don't know why no one mentions this, but you can also use master/servant. Historically, there wasn't a difference between servant and slave, but in modern days there is, so it's technically different, technically the same.
- Servant gets confusingly close to "server" which is already a badly overloaded term.
Perhaps people offended by the usage of master/slave in IT need to understand it isn't talking about people
- I’ve now got an image in my head of a new satanic panic around daemons and wizards in IT.
- Not anymore, but it does come from that root.
Domme and Sub?
- What if its a bratty Sub?
Brain and Limb.
- I need repos with these branch names. Main just sounds so lame. This would keep me on my toes
Cerebrate and Drone
- Does Overmind only come into play when talking about cloud environments?
cult leader and cult follower? but that just seems too long
- Cultleader and cultist.
Lol haven't heard queen and drone... Might use that in the future!
There is, it's controller and peripheral
- Peripheral means something different.
There are many articles around this topic and offerered alternatives. Though I don't think there's a consensus yet. Companies and individuals who made the change all did something slightly different.
- Which was an advantage of the old way. At least it was consistent and when you came across that terminology you knew what it meant. It wasn't always the best way to describe the relationship between nodes, but at least it was consistent.
Prime and Deploy?
Primary and Clone?
- Definitely not a good match for many situations.
I guess Hypnotist/Hypnotee would be one. Queen/Drone would work well, since there are drone kinks out there as well.
Primary and replica works in some contexts.
I don't think git is one of them, though.

If a word is enough to make you horny...

I've always taken issue with this "master" v. "main" argument.

People think it's "master" as in "master/slave", but forked branches are not "slaves".

Instead, it's "master" as in "master/proxy". The forked branches are altered copies of an original. We have remastered movies, music and games, and I've never seen anyone complain about the word in this context. Why should version control systems be any different?

I feel master as in "master copy" is sort of problematic too. Git has no concept of "master" as a "master copy". All the clones and forks are the same fidelity as the original. It's a hold over from source control which did have an authoritative repo like SVN/CVS.
People think it's "master" as in "master/slave", but forked branches are not "slaves".
I think they're just uncomfortable with the word "master", and that seems completely reasonable to me, especially when they're people from a group which has been subjected to slavery.
- I don't recall any actual person saying they had an issue with it before corporations started changing it though, I always thought it was a precautionary measure more than likely thought up by a committee looking for exactly this sort of thing...
  That said, it may be different in the US given the history of overall more systemic discrimination, and divisiveness over what's acceptable, rather than the fairly widely accepted casual slur-slinging and stereotyping you get in Europe.
- Yeah I don't think anyone was called a remaster, different words even if they share the same root
  Also master/slave was used in tech for awhile not just for forked branches, a couple examples are https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E88353_01/html/E37855/scsi-slave-9f.html in SCSI interfaces and replication systems like those used with databases https://jira.mariadb.org/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/MDEV-18777

Counterpoint: can't be horny on main if there's no main

I prefer horny on dev.

I prefer master because it makes me horni.

Mistress vs main

https://github.com/Gankra/cargo-mommy
Dom/sub
- To be honest, this seems like the only reasonable replacement.

It’s weird seeing language shift away from “master” as we become more politically correct in the US. I’d never even considered the connotation until recently.

The point of political correctness is that it's always things you'd never consider... but someone else does. I'm not here to say whether things are right or wrong or if "master" is good or bad. but you perfectly highlight the reasoning behind it.
To you, the only thing that comes up is the technology context. And that's perfectly reasonable. To someone else, the unrelated slave owning context may just be tightly coupled with that word, and that immediately comes to mind when they hear the word regardless of context. And someone in that scenario is probably not having a positive correlation with the word.
So a group of people have a very understandable reason to have a negative correlation with the word, and it's super easy to use a different word, so it seems to make sense to just use the other word.
All my git scripts these days have a $(git remote show origin | sed -n '/HEAD branch/s/.*: //p') in them, which just fetches whatever origin calls the head branch. so if I want to rebase from main/master/prod/lead/front/etc ... the command will figure out which one to use for me.
- To someone else, the unrelated slave owning context may just be tightly coupled with that word,
  Considering slavery was abolished in the US in 1865, no one alive ever felt what it's like to be a slave.
  Most people moaning about this are virtue-signaling.
  And corpos only do it to avoid lawsuits.
  Oh, unless you mean wage-slaves, then i'm onboard!
- What weirded me out is that (IIRC) most who advocated the use of main weren't who would have a negative correlation with the word master.
  Not that I have a problem with avoiding the use of master (I don't use master for my branches), but this felt virtue signal-y to me at the time.
- For me I pictured "master" as perfecting something. So when I asked someone as a noob why things were being switched from master to main I was surprised at the possibility that it could be related to master/slave, but completely understood why from that point.
I believe it was more because in database terminology there were masters and slaves for replication. Version control came under fire soon after.
- Apparently master / slave goes back more than 100 years. An example is "slave jib", which was a sail on a sailboat that was permanently set to catch the wind, and was almost always working. Or slave clocks and master clocks, where one primary clock is used to set other dependent clocks.
- Things like SPI bus in electronics, too.
- That’s funny, I’m guessing they thought they were being original and edgy when they merely looped back to the older use. In any case, I’m glad programming lingo doesn’t sound like a klan rally
Next up, we'll have to change terminology for "parents" and "children" once they find out how we use those terms with memory management.
- So I killed the parent and the children became zombies.
Master was just always a bad name for it.

No gods, no masters

git push origin main doesn't have the same ring to it as git push origin master

You forgot the - f

TRUNK

Toot
When I first started using SVN trunk was where all the code was, so I thought it mean like a chest instead of a tree. Like "just throw it in the trunk." My first experience with it was manually installing Gmod mods so anything related to branches was lost on me because it was irrelevant. It wasn't until after I began using git and seeing people refer to subversion as "trunk based development" for a while that it finally clicked. "Oh. Like a tree trunk. With branches."
I guess whatever floats your boat, buddy

Satan My Master!

trunk and it's not even close. It's even a mastodon reference therefore it's awesome.

trunk was the common name before git anyway. Why the move away? I've heard it's because git is more of a weird graph than the trunk+branch model of CVS. But if that's the reasoning, master is still a stupid name because it implies the same primacy as trunk. Why not just default or start or something?
- I think master came from master record. It makes some sense, as all other branches would be derived from the master branch.