339
Master vs main (again) (lemmy.myserv.one)
top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lena@gregtech.eu 85 points 1 month ago
[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

I prefer master exactly for that reason

[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

::sigh:: This is the correct answer for a buttplug.io based workflow.

[-] pelya@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago
[-] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago

What are you doing step-branch?

[-] CodenameDarlen@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago

I dislike master because main is shorter and faster to type

[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[-] oplkill@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Some newbie at project: git checkout -b main_problem_task123

[-] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 18 points 1 month ago

The best reason is always in the comments

[-] Hoimo@ani.social 41 points 1 month ago

I use master and apprentice. Always two there are, no more, no less.

[-] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 11 points 1 month ago

So that's why Sith were considered evil

[-] Morose@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Only a sith deals in absolutes, I will do what I must.

[-] Captain_Faraday@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago

I think will actually start using this “master” and “apprentice” now. Love it lol

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

Why isn’t there a journeyman Sith though?

[-] raman_klogius@ani.social 37 points 1 month ago

Treat branches like Chinese dynasties. The mainline branch is the one having the mandate of heaven.

[-] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 12 points 1 month ago

And they tend to fracture and rejoin seemingly at random, but with certain regularity

[-] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 31 points 1 month ago

I'm... I'm not sure that's the flex you think it is.

[-] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 month ago

I think it's mostly a shitpost lol

[-] digital_man@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago
[-] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 10 points 1 month ago

It just bothers me that "master" branch is a misnomer. It's a hold over from CVS/SVN where there was actually a central authoritative branch. I'm not necessary saying the other reasons don't have merit, as well.

[-] LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago
[-] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Master's trunk ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

Yaaaaaaaaa!

[-] tdawg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I always rename it to "dev." Hard to have any problems or confusion with that

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

dev is confusing it implies it's not the stable branch, no? Or was the master branch never stable for you?

[-] tdawg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The only time I merge unstable code is behind a feature flag

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Then what's the reasoning behind "dev"?

[-] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 2 points 1 month ago

You're not wrong.

[-] TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

I’m fairly confident the random branches I spin off to try out a dumb idea are not equal to main.

[-] Skibbidi@programming.dev 14 points 1 month ago

I know mine are worth less than others.

[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 month ago

Imagine the mess in a thousand people project where all branches are "equal"

[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

I work on a few repos that have branches that are rarely merged to the default one and it's quite annoying

[-] hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think 'master' is fine for the master branch. It's a master copy of the codebase.

I think 'main' is fine for the main branch. It's the main branch of the repo.

I use 'main' at work cos that's what my git client defaults to. I use 'master' at home because that's what my git client defaults to. 🤷‍♂️

[-] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 10 points 1 month ago

I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was

[-] Gonzako@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Main do be a bit less left hand heavy. Which depending on the user may find as a disadvantage.

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago

Someone suggested queen and worker. Luffy and then branches named after crew members also seemed nice. Another suggested dom and sub. Leader and cultist were other suggestions. For any StarCraft mod it should be Kerrigan and Raynor, or OverMind and Zerg, or for the later stages Amon and Protoss.

I love all those suggestions. Keeps things interesting and conveys the same thing.

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

... Has anyone adopted a 'Master' - 'Padawan' paradigm?

[-] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 7 points 1 month ago

Why not call it trunk and make it all tree themed

[-] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 1 month ago

Cause git doesn't work that way. There is no trunk. It's all branches.

[-] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 10 points 1 month ago

What is a trunk if not a large branch

[-] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Oh, that's valid, and forks could be called "asexual propagation"

Cherry picking from one trunk to another could be called grafting.

There is already pruning.

If there is no AI used, it could be called GMO.

I'm not sure if there is a tree analogy for merging trunks together, however.

[-] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago

But that's not actually true in general; there is a default branch concept in forges, and an integration and/or release branch in most recommended workflows. That's the trunk.

[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

To be completely fair, I've worked in places that treat Git like it's an over-engineered SVN and use the SVN workflow, fighting against the current the entire way. "trunk" would be just fine with that crowd.

[-] gigachad@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago

git config --global init.defaultBranch main

[-] Little8Lost@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The next release branch is the one i am currently working on. No need to merge it back to the other one

[-] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

i just call my main git branches trunk

[-] SecondSet@programming.dev 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Real talk, "master" refers to a "master copy" from which new branches ~~are~~ can be made from. If one of these branches becomes "better" than the current master copy, it gets "merged" into the master copy effectively replacing it as the new master copy (sometimes totally, sometimes partially).

Edit: Pretty sure basically everyone here knows this, but I figured it could not hurt to put the explanation here.

this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
339 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

27572 readers
2097 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS