Has Github/Microsoft rolled back the master to main switch? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by HK65@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So creating a new repo on GitHub, you get a set of getting started steps. They changed the default branchname to "main" from "master" due to its connotations with slavery.

When I create a new repo now, the initial getting started steps recommend creating a branch named "master" as opposed to "main" as it was a while ago.

It's especially weird since the line git branch -M master is completely unnecessary, since git init still sets you up with a "master" branch.

Disclaimer: I have a bunch of private repos, and my default branchnames are pretty much all "master".

Is this a recent change?

Edit: Mystery solved, my default branchname is "master". Thanks bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone !

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] phcorcoran@lemmy.world 99 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

(FYI I didn't make this and I believe it's fake but honestly it's hard to tell)

[-] normalexit@lemmy.world 54 points 8 months ago

Main is more concise and less problematic. A win all around.

[+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] astrsk@fedia.io 16 points 8 months ago

The only statement in your ridiculous rant that has any validity is that of your legacy pipeline configurations. But pipelines need to be updated and validated semi-regularly and should be generalized to begin with, so it’s not really any good point that your legacy pipelines cannot handle a default branch name change like modern pipelines should.

Swap main and master in your comment and it reads the exact same with all the same shallow justifications.

[+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] astrsk@fedia.io 6 points 8 months ago

lmao nothing you've said has anything to do with "Main is more concise and less problematic". Just because you created more work for yourself by having 70+ pipelines that need to be rewritten for a branch name change doesn't mean it's less concise or more problematic. It means you messed up by not having a pipeline capable of such a basic feature -- generalized targets with a separation of concerns. Standards change, requirements change, so do build pipelines. Being stubborn is not a reason against changing colloquial terms out of respect and growth in understanding.

[+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] astrsk@fedia.io 3 points 8 months ago

Again, you’re conflating your own stubbornness with correctness and that just ain’t how it goes. Branch names are frivolous. So much so that changing the strategy or retargeting a branch one time shouldn’t be such a nightmare for your pipelines that you have to pretend like you’re the big dick on campus spouting accomplishments when someone mildly suggests there’s a mistake in your thinking. Look inward if you’re so upset by this that you have to make up irrelevant insults in a vague attempt to protect your own ego, then go fix your pipelines to make it easier to do for the next person after you’re gone.

[-] kreynen@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 8 months ago

@astrsk@fedia.io

@HK65@sopuli.xyz @normalexit@lemmy.world @GreenKnight23@lemmy.world

The posts you are replying to ha e been deleted. I'm really currious what they said because we have one vendor who claims to be/is locked into usung "master". This either requires us to write CI that merges main -> master and mirrors master back to main or use master. This can confuse junior devs once or twice, but it is really not an issue. The ONLY time I felt compelled to use master because of this vendor was when working with a group using GitLab. GitLab has a feature called Pull Mirroring that is MUCH more reliable than a pull/mirror action in GitHub that does the same thing, but to use that the branch names had to be the same.

I see both sides of this argument. The master/slave relationship in tech is NOT like masterworks or mastering a craft. It is based on one "owning" the other, but I don't think that allowing technology to work that way is violating its rights. Obviously changing the name doesn't change the behavior and isn't it really only when that behavior is applied to people that we have a problem with it?

I never fully supported the effort required to change, but I've also never written anything in a way it would be difficult to change. I recognize that it could be considered a micro aggression, but it's not like we are going to stop ants or bees from treating other classes as forced labor. Slavery exists. It is bad when applied to people. It accurately describes tech. Changing the name of the master db or branch did NOT free the slaves.

[-] elephantium@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

master/slave relationship in tech

Wait, this is a thread about branch names in git. The "master" in question would be more akin to a "master recording" from music, not master/slave software or system architecture.

[-] astrsk@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago

While it may be true that the master branch is more akin to a master record, not everyone knows the nuance and quite frankly it doesn’t matter, if it makes people uncomfortable then it shouldn’t be a problem to accommodate a simple change, most of the tech world has already done so. Computers used to have a literal slave/master relationship with hardware components and control systems and we moved past that just fine despite still having controllers and actors everywhere.

[-] astrsk@fedia.io 1 points 8 months ago

It was someone ranting about the many hours and days of lost productivity and cost of manually switching over 70+ legacy build pipelines all because of a branch name change. Also lots of condescending and insulting language from someone who thought their stubbornness and “standards” meant they were better than everyone else. Honestly I just probably set them off in my first message and they wouldn’t let it go, leading to increased levels of ranting and insults from them attempting to spout accomplishments while detailing their failings in the same breath. Admittedly that above description is a bit belittling from my end, I’m just annoyed they couldn’t keep their messages up for all to see.

I still stand by the opinion that changing branch strategies, names, or targets should not be a multi-hour multi-resource process and if it is, that’s a failure of the systems engineers / ops who put together such a plan. It’s possible to have CI/CD pipelines that run for years on end attached to critical infrastructure while being flexible enough for such simple config changes and maintained by one engineer.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The stupidest problem I've seen arising from this debate was that with one employer they had a legally required retention policy, and instead of implementing it in their GitLab server software, they did it directly by coming in between GitLab and git. The result was that they had no idea which to use, so they protected both.

On one repo, we mistakenly made both branches, and there was no way to get rid of either, so it kinda just stayed there. It confused the hell out of new people.

I use master for my own stuff because of muscle memory, on the job IDC I use whatever, usually main these years.

[-] normalexit@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's just a word at the end of the day. To me "main" is literally a shorter word that means the same thing in my brain. It could be "trunk" or "release" or whatever else you'd like. "master" makes some people uneasy, so it seems like a simple solution to pick a different word.

The development community talked, informally settled on main, and here we are. Anecdotally it took me more time to write this than to switch most of my projects over. I use GitHub actions and a simple find/replace for a word not otherwise commonly used was the ticket.

I really don't care what other people use at the end of the day. Discussing version control and branching strategies drains my life away. If it is difficult to switch, don't, but if you start a new repo it is worth thinking about for a moment.

[-] bamboo 52 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

What's your default branch name for the user you're logged in as: https://github.com/settings/repositories

For me this setting is main and I created a new repo, and the steps all include the main branch and not master.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 33 points 8 months ago

Well, that is embarassing. It's master.

I don't remember setting this, but then again, I don't remember a lot of things. Thanks!

[-] wholookshere 6 points 8 months ago

It defaults to master if your account existed before the change I believe.

At least I had to manually change it.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 points 8 months ago

That might be it then. I never really read the getting started guide.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

As another data point I just set one up yesterday and it gave me a main branch, not master.

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025

67 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

76339 readers

1163 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws