If you’ve migrated the default branch of your git repository from master to main, please delete the master branch and ensure that the main branch is set as the default in your git remote host (e.g., GitHub, etc.) so people don’t accidentally base their contributions on the master branch.

If you do a git branch --move, you won’t have the above issue.

Here’s a good guide for all this, including updating your local settings so that git init uses main instead of master: hanselman.com/blog/easily-rena

I always saw that name in github as in "master crafter" or in "mastery". I mean only tested robust and seasoned code should be on there.

I mean, ok master/slave in replication or workload delegation is obviously a reference to slavery but here?


@SylvainDe Does it matter? I mean not only has GitHub already implemented it so it’s no trouble at all to adopt but if it means that even one person doesn’t feel bad because of something that’s so easy to change, why not? (Not to mention that main or default are far more semantically correct as a branch does not have to be based on the main branch, which is what a master/copy relationship implies.)

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 0

Well, I understand the feeling, but I'm a "get confortable being inconfortable" kind of guy when justified. In this specific issue, ( french native, still learning English and French) I don't think "mastery" implies being a teacher, boss or trainer. ( May be wrong) so in that case, I believe there is room for nuance in the term.
Slave/master: bad
Master-expert : nice
And I'm fond of keeping nuance in the world.

I loved that many projects spent a comparable time putting "Black lives matter" banners on their homepages at the time helping spread the word. This, seemed to me like a more productive and frankly, clearer way to address the issue.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

This is my personal Mastodon.