83 lines
4.6 KiB
HTML
83 lines
4.6 KiB
HTML
<p>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 <code>main</code> (rather than
|
|
the traditional <code>master</code>). 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 <code>master</code>, 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 <code>main</code>. 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<sup><a href="#r1" >[1]</a></sup>, 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."<sup><a href="#r2" >[2]</a></sup></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>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 <code>main</code> 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.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>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.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>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.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>So basically, stop caring about these changes. It's not that important. As
|
|
for myself, I'll continue to use <code>master</code> simply for compatibility's
|
|
sake, but I'm not going to be bothered if I have to work on a project where
|
|
<code>main</code> is used instead. I will also continue to use GitLab, despite
|
|
they too wishing to switch to <code>main</code> 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
|
|
<code>master</code> branch (something I find unlikely) I will likely return to
|
|
self-hosting, and likely also switch to using the Fossil version-control
|
|
system,<sup><a href="#r3" >[3]</a></sup> which I've considered doing in the past
|
|
anyways.</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol class="refs" >
|
|
<li id="r1" >
|
|
<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/a/64249580"
|
|
target="_blank" >
|
|
"Difference Between Main Branch and Master Branch in Github?" on
|
|
StackOverflow
|
|
</a>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li id="r2" >
|
|
<a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-term-to-avoid-slavery-references/"
|
|
target="_blank" >
|
|
"GitHub to replace 'master' with alternative term to avoid slavery
|
|
references" from ZDNet
|
|
</a>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li id="r3" >
|
|
<a href="https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki"
|
|
target="_blank" >
|
|
Fossil Home Page
|
|
</a>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ol>
|