From 048f7493f767a6f831415c61475cce8b4667b397 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Nicol=C3=A1s=20Ortega=20Froysa?= Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:06:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] New blog post about Git branches. --- blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.cfg | 5 ++ .../posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.html | 82 +++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+) create mode 100644 blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.cfg create mode 100644 blog/posts/0140-git-main-vs-master-branch.html 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.

+ +
    +
  1. + + "Difference Between Main Branch and Master Branch in Github?" on + StackOverflow + +
    2. +
  2. + + "GitHub to replace 'master' with alternative term to avoid slavery + references" from ZDNet + +
    3. +
  3. + + Fossil Home Page + +
    4. +