diff --git a/blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.cfg b/blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.cfg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..725d63b --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.cfg @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +filename = 2021-08-11-git-main-vs-master-branch.html +title = Git Main vs. Master Branch +description = Since the change on GitHub and other platforms to change the default branch of Git projects to `main` instead of `master`, I thought I'd give my two cents on the matter. +created = 2021-08-11 +updated = 2021-08-11 diff --git a/blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.html b/blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b2d589d --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.html @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +
So a few weeks ago while trying to create a Git project I noticed that Git
+had asked me if I would like to set a new name in my configuration for the
+default Git branch, and it suggested the use of main
(rather than
+the traditional master
). I was a little surprised, but since it
+bothered me again later to set the configuration variable, I decided I would
+simply set it to master
, which is what I'm used to, and works best
+with my shell aliases and whatnot. I also realized later when creating a
+project on GitLab that it too was suggesting to use main
. I still
+hadn't looked up the exact reason for this sudden change, but I could already
+imagine. That's when I came across someone asking about the matter on
+StackOverflow[1], which explains that GitHub (and
+probably Git and GitLab as well) are wanting to change the name of the default
+branch so as to "avoid any unnecessary references to
+slavery."[2]
I think I'll start out by saying that I really don't care if these
+organizations want to change the default or not. It's not that big of a deal,
+and that's not what I'm writing this post about. I'm fairly certain that if the
+Git developers had chosen to call the default branch main
from the
+beginning nobody would've noticed any difference, and nobody would've cared.
+Yet, I can already foresee a lot of people getting unreasonably upset about this
+change, both in favor and against.
Those who are against the change will correctly point out that this truly +isn't an issue of great importance, and it's silly to waste time on something of +this sort. But then, ironically, they will also be the first to make a huge fuss +about this change. If it truly doesn't matter, then it doesn't make sense to +make a fuss either way, so long as we're not being forced to waste our time +changing branch names and rewriting all our scripts and aliases. If there's +someone who wants to do that, then good for them, and nobody should care.
+ +Those in favor of the change, however, will likely view any person who simply +doesn't wish to make the change (like myself), no matter how practical the +reason, as acting in resistance to the condemnation of slavery, and will demand +(in some form or another) that we adapt ourselves. This I find to be equally as +silly. Firstly, the word "master" is not exclusively used to refer to slavery, +but is also a term generally referring to "mastery" of something. I'm also +concerned at how any reference to slavery is automatically a bad thing, as from +a religious context, for example, the Abrahamic religions (e.g. Judaism, +Christianity, and Islam) make many references to faithful "slaves/servants of +the Lord." Just like in the case of these branches, it's not referring to +chattel slavery, it's referring to a relationship of obedience to God. It would +bother me greatly if these references were seen as too offensive to be used in +our rituals. But perhaps more than all of these, which I simply put forward to +show that it's not that big of a deal in the first place, is that some of us +don't really care and just want to maintain consistency among our projects, and +not bother to rewrite our scripts and aliases.
+ +So basically, stop caring about these changes. It's not that important. As
+for myself, I'll continue to use master
simply for compatibility's
+sake, but I'm not going to be bothered if I have to work on a project where
+main
is used instead. I will also continue to use GitLab, despite
+they too wishing to switch to main
as the default branch, as I
+mostly create the repositories locally first anyways. I will say, however, that
+if these platforms decide to take action in directly prohibiting a
+master
branch (something I find unlikely) I will likely return to
+self-hosting, and likely also switch to using the Fossil version-control
+system,[3] which I've considered doing in the past
+anyways.