GitLab Will Now Default To "Main" For New Git Repositories

[SalJ163]

And when even a Bernie Sanders is happy to vote against 15 Dollar minimum wage...

Latest I saw was that 8 Democrats voted against adding it to the Coronavirus aid bill and none of those who voted against adding it to that bill were called Bernie or Sanders. Considering that the 15 dollar minimum wage was his proposal since 2015 I find that hard to believe. He only voted to abolish tipped minimum wage, which means that waiters would have to make at least minimum wage and tips they receive are actually tips, like in Europe, rather than part of their wage.

11 pages for a topic that can be summed up as `Why is this a news story?` It's such an insignificant change affecting exactly no one, since projects that existed before the change will keep their current branches and new ones will simply have a `main` branch as a default instead of `master.` Because it's intended as a `we care` signal to minorities to some people it becomes some horrific attack on freedom of speech and the constitution of the united states, that has to be stopped. If it bothers you, you can name your main branch `master.` Complain if they decide to blacklist, or try to rename your old master branches. That complaint I'd support, but this change is hardly worth mentioning.

[rickyzhang]

stupid PC none sense.

I’m going to rename all my dev branch with slave prefix.

[Brisse]

11 pages for a topic that can be summed up as `Why is this a news story?` It's such an insignificant change affecting exactly no one,

Because capitalism and culture war.

Clicks and user engagement creates ad exposure which leads to monetary profit. Welcome to the click-bait-economy.

Baiting the anti-"woke" cult, anti-"sjw" and such trolls engaging in culture war is guaranteed to create a lot of user engagement, hence profit. The one publishing the "news" knows this beforehand. The article is doing exactly what it is intended to do.

Big corporations like Google and Facebook relishes in this new click-bait economy, and sadly I think it is detrimental to our society as it is tearing apart our social fabric, destabilizing our society.

[computerquip]

While I don't think the change is that big of a deal, people responding to it really need to understand that it's *not that big of a deal*. There's really no downside to it either.

In addition, the term "master" doesn't even fit git branches very well. What determines master and what doesn't is an implicit rule.
For example, if you branch master into a branch named bob, at that point in time, those two branches are equivalent. If you then push a commit to bob and use that as development, in what way does the master branch fit the term "master"? bob has basically no relationship to master outside of using it as a starting point. In particular, it's missing the master/slave relationship that's required for this to make sense. I've seen people learning git be confused by this because it implies there's some relationship when there isn't.

[blackiwid]

The US is a big place, any one-size-fits-all minimum wage should be the lowest common denominator. $15 may make sense in NYC, but doesn't make sense in rural Kansas. There is nothing stopping state and local politicians from enacting a higher min wage in their jurisdictions. Honestly I think it would make a lot of sense if they did, and I'd support that. After all, a 1BR apartment is $1500 in the city, but is $250 in the rural areas. The better question, is why haven't these Blue state Mayors enacted a $15 min wage in their high priced cities?? I'll tell you why. Because they don't give a crap about poor people, except at election time. Just look at the evidence: we have cities that have been under uninterrupted Democrat rule for half a century or more, and those same cities are the poorest most violent places in America. Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, etc. They can't even manage things at a local level with decades to implement their policies. And now we've been bamboozled into putting them in charge of Congress and the White House. Buckle up, it's about to get bumpy, hopefully you have some cash in the bank and a safe place to fall back to.

First if unemployement would be seen as problem then the state could help the businesses to pay all this wages... while they force them to close down because of the pandemic, what here in geramny is normal.

2. I said I would prefer a UBI, but they are socialists that is their thing, and AOC even said that the reason she did not support #forcethevote to make the congress put healthcare on the floor for a vote, because she wanted to use this for "doable things" like the 15 dollar wage. You can find that wrong, but if that people are the left and that is their claimed goal but they refuse to fight for it, then they are a scam.

3. They could have at least push for 10 dollar now and maybe include in the bill in 2 years 15 or 12 or anything, or whatever other "left" idea... they did not blockade the bill for everything. they could have fought for the promised 2000 dollar or stop the reduction from 400 to 300 unemployment bills, or make the 2000 dollar not means tested like it is now... the point is they do nothing, they just say to each bill that brings any small positive YES, master...

[kingu]

While I don't think the change is that big of a deal, people responding to it really need to understand that it's *not that big of a deal*. There's really no downside to it either.

In addition, the term "master" doesn't even fit git branches very well. What determines master and what doesn't is an implicit rule.
For example, if you branch master into a branch named bob, at that point in time, those two branches are equivalent. If you then push a commit to bob and use that as development, in what way does the master branch fit the term "master"? bob has basically no relationship to master outside of using it as a starting point. In particular, it's missing the master/slave relationship that's required for this to make sense. I've seen people learning git be confused by this because it implies there's some relationship when there isn't.

I guess default name branching _is_ an implicit rule. You stand corrected and without anything to argue for…
I take it you are suggesting words should function like your understanding of them, at any level? How are the rest of us going to get anything done, pray tell?

"Master" neither means what you think it does, nor does it have to be paired with "slave". If and when, you are still not in a position to take offense to its use in technology, nor do you have a point in doing so outside of that. It is furthermore pointless.
You are entitled to your misconceptions I guess, but how is "main" somehow devoid of any such problem? "main" has a relation to "master", using your argument as a starting point. If you decide the branch you are going to use isn't the "defaultname" one, how is having a meaningful name for any branches going to help you? It doesn't go beyond one intention for one branch, named one thing. Are there special rules for the logic you employ too? I guess everyone can just change the names of all of their branches, all of the time. There are only implicit rules holding it together, right? Why not break every point of interaction right there? After all we are just using Git as of now. Arbitrary branch naming for arbitrary reasons was somehow a fix, so Git itself is surely the oppressor.

As a system surviving multiple iterations of incompatible systems, it was what it was, then a group of people oblivious to language, history and version control systems sought offense. In the year of Linux on the desktop 2020…
Now it is and will remain both, and you think a problem was solved how exactly? It has the opposite effect of integrating even those people, much less any beneficial effect on anyone productive.

[computerquip]

I guess default name branching _is_ an implicit rule. You stand corrected and without anything to argue for…
I take it you are suggesting words should function like your understanding of them, at any level? How are the rest of us going to get anything done, pray tell?

"Master" neither means what you think it does, nor does it have to be paired with "slave". If and when, you are still not in a position to take offense to its use in technology, nor do you have a point in doing so outside of that. It is furthermore pointless.
You are entitled to your misconceptions I guess, but how is "main" somehow devoid of any such problem? "main" has a relation to "master", using your argument as a starting point. If you decide the branch you are going to use isn't the "defaultname" one, how is having a meaningful name for any branches going to help you? It doesn't go beyond one intention for one branch, named one thing. Are there special rules for the logic you employ too? I guess everyone can just change the names of all of their branches, all of the time. There are only implicit rules holding it together, right? Why not break every point of interaction right there? After all we are just using Git as of now. Arbitrary branch naming for arbitrary reasons was somehow a fix, so Git itself is surely the oppressor.

As a system surviving multiple iterations of incompatible systems, it was what it was, then a group of people oblivious to language, history and version control systems sought offense. In the year of Linux on the desktop 2020…
Now it is and will remain both, and you think a problem was solved how exactly? It has the opposite effect of integrating even those people, much less any beneficial effect on anyone productive.

After I unfortunately tried to read this mess of a response, there's very little coherency to anything said.

One thing that was said is "master" doesn't need to be paired with "slaves", and that's true! For example a "master" bedroom doesn't mean all the other bedrooms are "slave" bedrooms. In that regard, it's just another bedroom that's a bit larger (usually). An argument could be made for how it got that secondary meaning but I digress. The problem is that isn't its primary use in technology generally and that isn't the first thing people jump to in their head when they're trying to understand a concept.

I had a hard time getting through the very thick layer of condescending sarcasm and douchery but I think you were implying that I said that names aren't meaningful? I have no clue wtf you are saying.

There are people who find the word "master" offensive, and I think that's silly as previously stated. But the change costs a very small amount. It's rather easy to change from master to main. It's just as easy to change main to master if your tooling doesn't work with main. It's not really all that difficult and it has very few costs.

[kingu]

↑

Based on an appreciation of what something sounds like, you fail to take into account the logic behind it.
Consistent as that may well be, you don't get to 100% change with no reasoning.
You are arguing past logic into a conclusion that projects "there's very little coherency to anything said."

Appeasing people with even less of an argument feeds into a particularly unsound system, at the cost of actual inclusion and ease of use in a system the world relies on. There are as such, tremendous costs.
If you haven't noticed then I guess good for you. GitHub itself was down when they instated this change.

How you got from "if your tooling doesn't work" to "it has very few costs" reaffirms my belief that the only positive to come out of this is going to be more resilient systems.
Maybe it is a small price to pay for someone to play their entire hand.

If I grant you it has no associated cost og any kind at any time, without complication, we arrive at why still?
If you think it is silly, nevermind the resoning for that being the case, why does that not take away from doing anything.
To the contrary, what do you think is the reason _for_ changing anything? What do you envision as a net gain positive result?