If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"?

Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world – 609 points –

It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology's problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

426

You are viewing a single comment
View all commentsShow the parent comment

The default for git repositories is still master. Not to be the "real programmers only use CLI" guy, but I feel like git init isn't too hipster.

...which you get a multiline message telling you to change your ways (Linus doesn't break UX)....every time you init....weird.

$ git init
hint: Using 'master' as the name for the initial branch. This default branch name
hint: is subject to change. To configure the initial branch name to use in all
hint: of your new repositories, which will suppress this warning, call:
hint:
hint: 	git config --global init.defaultBranch 
hint:
hint: Names commonly chosen instead of 'master' are 'main', 'trunk' and
hint: 'development'. The just-created branch can be renamed via this command:
hint:
hint: 	git branch -m

Gonna be honest, I don't think I ever read that. I think I usually just do git status immediately after to see if all's well.

The default has been main for awhile.

This is the case in our current version of git (git version 2.28. 0). As of October 1, 2020, any new repository you create on GitHub.com will use main as the default branch.

March 2021 for gitlab

Still the default in git.

...but recommended to be changed every. single. time. you git init. https://lemmy.world/comment/11895670

can you point where ANYTHING is recommended at all there?

Cause it simply says that you can change the name. But "master" is the default. That doesn't sound like a "recommendation" at all. But just making people aware since some repositories try to force things like "Main". Almost like the repo you're using might be enforcing shit that Git in of itself doesn't give a shit about.

which will suppress this warning

"I'm going to be annoying you until you do something about it" It is recommending that you take some sort of action, that choice is up to you as the user. In fact, the older way of disabling the warning was called advice.defaultBranchName

AFAIK git is still Linus Trovalds' project and one thing he is known for is "you dont fuckin break user space". That is acknowledged in the pull request https://github.com/git/git/pull/921

"will minimize disruption for Git's users and will include appropriate deprecation periods".

Linus is also a fuck-your-feelings kind of guy so deprecation_period == linus_date_of_death. No, I'm not implying Linus is racist/bigot, just that he feels that strongly about breaking user experience.

Git in of itself doesn’t give a shit about.

You're right...and that's why its unbelievable to me how some people are still (it has been nearly 4 years since that PR above) resistant to change this one little thing. This is just the initial branch that we're talking about here. Git doesn't care if you:

﬌ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/xxxxxx/tmp/.git/

﬌ touch foo && git add foo && git commit -am "foo"
[main (root-commit) 9c74dd1] foo
 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 foo

﬌ git branch -a            
* main

﬌ git checkout -b bar
Switched to a new branch 'bar'

﬌ git branch -d main
Deleted branch main (was 9c74dd1).

﬌ git branch -a
* bar

﬌ git log      
commit 9c74dd18d493fec727e6ce9e4ba71ed356dd970d (HEAD -> bar)
Author: Butters
Date:   Thu Aug 22 00:14:44 2024 -0400

    foo

“I’m going to be annoying you until you do something about it”

You call that annoying? Annoying would be not functioning at all unless you choose an choice... or even worse. Go the Github route and specifically force you to use anything other than master.

Git doesn’t care if you:

Right... So why are you attributing Github = Git... When It's clear that's not the case.

Github != git.

No shit? Let me guess; you're still using git like Linus intended it to be, decentralized, by emailing each other tar.gz's

No. I'm just not willing to attribute a COMPANY as the sole owner/stakeholder in a protocol that honestly has very little to do with them.

Just because Github does something, doesn't mean that they represent git.

I just used the most popular/known example. Personally I haven't liked GitHub since Micro$oft bought them. I'm ol' school, 25 years in the biz so M$ really really leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth.

I'll answer your other question in the other thread.