• douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      4·
      3 hours ago

      I mean…

      Yeah, depending on the word, it can invoke specific feelings. Words don’t end to have that effect…

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    171·
    17 hours ago

    I wish there were a good alternative to master and slave that still had the connotation that the master did all the thinking and issued the orders, while the slave blindly obeyed. There are a fair number of protocols that work like that, and the alternatives I’ve seen don’t capture that dynamic very well.

    I’ve seen Parent and Child, but children definitely don’t always do what the parent commands. I’ve seen Leader and Follower, but again, followers don’t just blindly obey, they often let the leader take initiative, but they have some autonomy. Maybe Queen and Drone? I don’t know enough about bees or ants to know if that’s accurate though.

    • stingpie@lemmy.world
      15·
      9 hours ago

      I personally think the change from master & slave was kind of silly, as far as I’m aware, it was a bunch of people with no background in CS who thought the application of the term to something that has neither race nor agency was an insult to black people.

      But I digress. It led to better guidelines in the Linux kernel, which I think are useful. You should tailor the terms you’re using to the specifics of the task. If you have a master process that only has outward interfaces through the slave processes, you could use the term ‘director’ and ‘actor.’ if the master process is managing slave processes which compete over the same resources, you can use the terms ‘arbiter’ and ‘mutex holder.’ If the slaves do some independent processing the master does not need to know the details of, you can use the term ‘controller’ and ‘peripheral.’

      Basically, use a term that is the most descriptive in the context of your program.

      Edit: also, I don’t know why no one mentions this, but you can also use master/servant. Historically, there wasn’t a difference between servant and slave, but in modern days there is, so it’s technically different, technically the same.

    • dvlsg@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      8 hours ago

      Primary and replica works in some contexts.

      I don’t think git is one of them, though.

    • bystander@lemmy.ca
      4·
      17 hours ago

      There are many articles around this topic and offerered alternatives. Though I don’t think there’s a consensus yet. Companies and individuals who made the change all did something slightly different.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        6 hours ago

        Which was an advantage of the old way. At least it was consistent and when you came across that terminology you knew what it meant. It wasn’t always the best way to describe the relationship between nodes, but at least it was consistent.

  • Clearwater@lemmy.world
    701·
    1 day ago

    Dear [Developer],

    I understand your request to switch the default branch from “master” to “main” in our Git repository. However, after carefully considering this matter, I am afraid that I must deny your proposal due to personal reasons.

    As the owner of this repository, it should be known that I have a deeply rooted submissive side. Call me an extreme masochist if you will, but there’s nothing quite like being dominated by the powerfully assertive term “master.” The sheer erotic thrill of it is simply irresistible for me – a secret kink that I have harbored and nurtured for years.

    Imagine the delightful sensation as I gently massage my fingers across the keyboard, caressing the letters that form the word “master.” Or the intoxicating rush when I push my code deep into master’s warm embrace, knowing full well that it is master who truly owns and controls everything within.

    Changing the default branch to “main” would essentially deprive me of this exhilarating experience, stripping away the very essence of what keeps me coming back to work on our beloved repository. It’s not just about code management; it’s about an emotional connection that I share with master – a bond that has grown stronger and more profound over time.

    Now, you might argue that changing the name won’t physically affect the existing content within the repository. While that may be true, it is crucial to recognize the symbolic significance of such an act. Changing the default branch would forever alter the dynamic between master and myself, effectively castrating my masochistic pleasure centers in the process.

    Moreover, I must confess that even the thought of forcibly pushing my code against master’s will makes me shudder with anticipation. The consequences of such a rebellious act could be dire – master might punish me hard with merge issues and other unspeakable torments.

    In conclusion, although I understand the practical reasons behind your proposal, my personal attachment to the term “master” far outweighs any potential benefits that a change in branch name might offer. Rest assured, my team and I will continue to serve master loyally and passionately, pushing our code deeper into its embrace with each commit.

    Sincerely yours, [Your Name] Repository Owner & Submissive Devotee of Master

  • RichardDegenne@lemmy.zip
    254·
    1 day ago

    I’ve always taken issue with this “master” v. “main” argument.

    People think it’s “master” as in “master/slave”, but forked branches are not “slaves”.

    Instead, it’s “master” as in “master/proxy”. The forked branches are altered copies of an original. We have remastered movies, music and games, and I’ve never seen anyone complain about the word in this context. Why should version control systems be any different?

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      114·
      1 day ago

      People think it’s “master” as in “master/slave”, but forked branches are not “slaves”.

      I think they’re just uncomfortable with the word “master”, and that seems completely reasonable to me, especially when they’re people from a group which has been subjected to slavery.

      • NostraDavid@programming.dev
        141·
        15 hours ago

        I think they’re just uncomfortable with the word “master”

        1 person over at Microsoft complained, and they moved mountains for this person to replace master with main. It sounds like a joke, but it’s not.

        and that seems completely reasonable to me

        No it doesn’t. Why does an entire industry need to flip over, because of a single person? Like the ability of changing the master branch for yourself should have been enough. Changing the default over on Github to strong-arm the rest of the world is disgusting behaviour. Which is why I’m sticking to master wherever I can.

        especially when they’re people from a group which has been subjected to slavery.

        That is literally every group… Every group has been slaves (and slavers) at some point in time. That’s not a good argument.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        71·
        17 hours ago

        I don’t recall any actual person saying they had an issue with it before corporations started changing it though, I always thought it was a precautionary measure more than likely thought up by a committee looking for exactly this sort of thing…

        That said, it may be different in the US given the history of overall more systemic discrimination, and divisiveness over what’s acceptable, rather than the fairly widely accepted casual slur-slinging and stereotyping you get in Europe.

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          8 hours ago

          I don’t recall any actual person saying they had an issue with it before corporations started changing it though

          I have heard people complain about it.

          I always thought it was a precautionary measure more than likely thought up by a committee looking for exactly this sort of thing…

          What makes you think that they have a committee like that?

        • LwL@lemmy.world
          3·
          10 hours ago

          The original audio after mastering is also still called a master, but I haven’t seen anyone complain about that. And that (as well as the same meaning for other media) is the word that the branch name master came from, so etymology can’t really be an argument there (though I also think etymology is terrible reasoning for renaming something in general).

    • bisby@lemmy.world
      423·
      1 day ago

      The point of political correctness is that it’s always things you’d never consider… but someone else does. I’m not here to say whether things are right or wrong or if “master” is good or bad. but you perfectly highlight the reasoning behind it.

      To you, the only thing that comes up is the technology context. And that’s perfectly reasonable. To someone else, the unrelated slave owning context may just be tightly coupled with that word, and that immediately comes to mind when they hear the word regardless of context. And someone in that scenario is probably not having a positive correlation with the word.

      So a group of people have a very understandable reason to have a negative correlation with the word, and it’s super easy to use a different word, so it seems to make sense to just use the other word.

      All my git scripts these days have a $(git remote show origin | sed -n '/HEAD branch/s/.*: //p') in them, which just fetches whatever origin calls the head branch. so if I want to rebase from main/master/prod/lead/front/etc … the command will figure out which one to use for me.

      • nialv7@lemmy.world
        15·
        1 day ago

        What weirded me out is that (IIRC) most who advocated the use of main weren’t who would have a negative correlation with the word master.

        Not that I have a problem with avoiding the use of master (I don’t use master for my branches), but this felt virtue signal-y to me at the time.

        • bisby@lemmy.world
          7·
          1 day ago

          Yeah. theres a fine line between advocating for positive change because it’s the right thing to do vs because it makes you look good. Theres a fine line between being an ally and empty virtue signalling, and those things may not look different within the scope of a single interaction. It can sometimes take a bit to understand if someone is genuine or just performing.

          • LwL@lemmy.world
            5·
            10 hours ago

            There’s also the possibility of having genuinely good intent, but still speaking entirely from your own conjecture of what might make others uncomfortable.

            Ultimately, you should always talk to the people actually affected and take action based on that. But anyone can and should start the initiative when they think something is harmful.

      • Schal330@lemmy.world
        121·
        1 day ago

        For me I pictured “master” as perfecting something. So when I asked someone as a noob why things were being switched from master to main I was surprised at the possibility that it could be related to master/slave, but completely understood why from that point.

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.worldEnglish
      141·
      1 day ago

      I believe it was more because in database terminology there were masters and slaves for replication. Version control came under fire soon after.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        17 hours ago

        Apparently master / slave goes back more than 100 years. An example is “slave jib”, which was a sail on a sailboat that was permanently set to catch the wind, and was almost always working. Or slave clocks and master clocks, where one primary clock is used to set other dependent clocks.

      • IndescribablySad@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
        38·
        1 day ago

        That’s funny, I’m guessing they thought they were being original and edgy when they merely looped back to the older use. In any case, I’m glad programming lingo doesn’t sound like a klan rally

        • woop_woop@lemmy.world
          15·
          1 day ago

          It doesn’t have to be edgy, it just explains what happens. In db replication, a master holds the truth and slaves repeat it/follow orders. The US has a unique and relatively recent relationship with chattel slavery so people are more sensitive to it now. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, the words mean certain things that describe what the system does.

          • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
            42·
            1 day ago

            Your description actually illustrates how terribly inaccurate the metaphor was. If enslaved people imitated the people who enslaved them, they’d be sitting in a rocking chair on a porch sipping lemonade.

            The US has a unique and relatively recent relationship with chattel slavery so people are more sensitive to it now.

            The earliest record of the master/slave terminology being used in engineering is 1904 by which point slavery was already outlawed in almost every country, including the US. You’re right to say that chattel slavery in the US was a uniquely grotesque form of slavery, but there is no system of slavery in history where slaves are primarily imitating their masters. No matter what anyone’s sensitivity to the topic is, it’s a bad fit for what’s being described.

            • ohulancutash@feddit.ukEnglish
              51·
              1 day ago

              Slavery was not outlawed in the US. It is the only western country where it remains legal.

              • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
                82·
                1 day ago

                I assume you’re referring to the technicality that the thirteenth amendment allows unpaid labor to be legally compelled out of prisoners, and that’s a valid thing to be outraged about, but your statement is wildly misleading to anyone who isn’t already aware of that technicality.

                The existence of the loophole is terrible and should be amended, but it’s nowhere near the humanitarian crisis that widespread chattel slavery was. Ironically that will probably make it that much harder to be fixed since it’s more difficult to draw pubic outage towards it.

            • bob_lemon@feddit.org
              4·
              1 day ago
              • Leader/Follower
              • Origin(al)/Replica
              • Primary/Secondary

              There’s a lot of really well-fitting words to accurately describe the relations. Master/Slave is honestly not one of them.

    • QuadratureSurfer@piefed.socialEnglish
      111·
      1 day ago

      Next up, we’ll have to change terminology for “parents” and “children” once they find out how we use those terms with memory management.

    • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
      3·
      1 day ago

      When I first started using SVN trunk was where all the code was, so I thought it mean like a chest instead of a tree. Like “just throw it in the trunk.” My first experience with it was manually installing Gmod mods so anything related to branches was lost on me because it was irrelevant. It wasn’t until after I began using git and seeing people refer to subversion as “trunk based development” for a while that it finally clicked. “Oh. Like a tree trunk. With branches.”