Mesa To Join Other Open-Source Projects With "Main" For Primary Code Branch

[s_j_newbury]

I heard that one somewhere. Oh yes:

Brilliant

[GraysonPeddie]

You're being political by the way, if not partisan (which actually is a big part of the problem). I agree with you though, this is getting completely insane and is only furthering divisiveness. Sanitizing language when it comes to how people are addressed is a matter of civil discourse, using language you know offends is rude and anti-social, this weird identity-politics driven witch hunt is doing far more harm than good.

No I'm not. I try to avoid discussing anything political and I will keep myself OUT whenever I can.

[Tuxee]

This is utter nonsense. The world "Master" conceptually has nothing to do with slavery.

Particularly with branches it doesn't make a lot of sense. That's all I was stating.

[Syretia]

Who even cares? Why did you think this is news worthy? How did you manage to even write an entire article about a repo switching branch names?

[Syretia]

Ah, I see. So you hopefully have a "slave" branch as well - because otherwise the master branch doesn't make much sense either. I frequently have projects with dev or stable branches - "master" never made too much sense, but every repo has (or had) one. "Main" in this context is a lot more meaningful.

I suggest you look up the definition of master.

• n: an original creation (i.e., an audio recording) from which copies can be made

Seems pretty fitting.

[s_j_newbury]

Particularly with branches it doesn't make a lot of sense. That's all I was stating.

We're talking about the adjective use of the word: (from Definitions from Oxford Languages)

adjective
adjective: master

• 1.
  having or showing very great skill or proficiency.
  "you don't have to be a master chef in order to cook meat properly"
• 2.
  main; principal.
  "the apartment's master bathroom has a free-standing oval bathtub"

So, "main" doesn't quite give the same complete meaning, it lacks the attribute of "principal". There is no need for slave branches, since by the meaning of the word it would make no sense!

[Syretia]

We're talking about the adjective use of the word: (from Definitions from Oxford Languages)

adjective
adjective: master

• 1.
  having or showing very great skill or proficiency.
  "you don't have to be a master chef in order to cook meat properly"
• 2.
  main; principal.
  "the apartment's master bathroom has a free-standing oval bathtub"

So, "main" doesn't quite give the same complete meaning, it lacks the attribute of "principal". There is no need for slave branches, since by the meaning of the word it would make no sense!

You might be, but that doesn't accurately describe the use of master in git. The use of master in git fits the definition I gave above. There's no need to even present other definitions of master here.

[CommunityMember]

"the apartment's master bathroom has a free-standing oval bathtub"

I presume you are aware that real estate agents are moving to eliminate the use of the term "master" (bedroom/bathroom) in their processes, with some choosing the term principal and some choosing main. "The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote".

[tomas]

Here we go again....
As been said numerous times already:

The branch that happens to be named master in git is not special. Technically it is not treated differently from any other branch created in git. It does not have any special treatment inside git compared to other branches. How you decide to use it is completely work flow specific. Some work flows use it as the main development branch while other work flows use it only for officially tagged releases and some don't use it at all. The branch that happens to be named master does not constitute a master in a typical master-slave relationship well known in computer science. Neither can it be considered to be a master in the sense of a "master copy", unless it is somehow used that way by the users of the git repo. Those who prefer to continue naming the initially created branch as "master" may continue to do so. Nothing will change. Those who thinks that "main" or "develop" or anything else is a more descriptive name may use that name instead. That will also work. Those Mesa developers that would prefer to keep the name master may even continue doing that in their own repo since its trivial to have a name in the private repo that differs from the branch being tracked. And the world will go on.

[s_j_newbury]

Here we go again....
As been said numerous times already:

The branch that happens to be named master in git is not special. Technically it is not treated differently from any other branch created in git. It does not have any special treatment inside git compared to other branches. How you decide to use it is completely work flow specific. Some work flows use it as the main development branch while other work flows use it only for officially tagged releases and some don't use it at all. The branch that happens to be named master does not constitute a master in a typical master-slave relationship well known in computer science. Neither can it be considered to be a master in the sense of a "master copy", unless it is somehow used that way by the users of the git repo. Those who prefer to continue naming the initially created branch as "master" may continue to do so. Nothing will change. Those who thinks that "main" or "develop" or anything else is a more descriptive name may use that name instead. That will also work. Those Mesa developers that would prefer to keep the name master may even continue doing that in their own repo since its trivial to have a name in the private repo that differs from the branch being tracked. And the world will go on.

You are deliberately missing the point. Clearly the branch named master is special, otherwise why all the fuss? Perhaps it's because of my Asperger's; but this kind of thing really annoys me. Words have meanings, changing them in order to demonize people who continue to use them is morally repugnant.

Nobody uses the term master in Computer Science as a racist slur. This whole exercise seems to be to deliberately cause division, it isn't helping any cause. It just allows people to be victimized based up whether they accept this imposition, or not. Anybody standing against this "reasonable" redefinition and purge is clearly a racist, and presumably should be cancelled?