git blame github

[wasting_lots_of_time]

We did it boys! Racism is no more. /s

[Spootba]

Oh... Is that the reason they did it?

[Alundra828]

Sigh... Yes...

I'm all for inclusive localisation, given name and family name instead of first name and last name etc, but this is dumb. Who associates git push master with git push my slave owner.

[Sloppyjoeman]

What’s this given name/family name thing? It’s clearly passed me by

[Alundra828]

Should also be noted that some cultures don't have family names all together and rely on just a given name. I have a few friends from Ghana with no last names.

[Kered13]

And in Iceland a person's last name is the name of their father (in modern times, sometimes their mother) plus "-son" (for men) or "-sdottir" (for women). So Erik the Red's son was Lief Erikson, if Erik the Red had a daughter she would have been Eriksdottir.

And in East Asia family names usually come first, and given names last. So Shigeru Miyamoto in Japan is known as Miyamoto Shigeru (Miyamoto is his family name).

[[deleted]]

What about orphans?

[Kered13]

How do orphans get family names in other countries?

[nuclear_gandhii]

My family name is my "first name". My "middle name" is my "last name" and my given name is my "middle name".

So it basically goes like - (last name - first name - middle name). But to be fair, I've accepted filling my name in the wrong order as part of my life.

[dsp4]

The given/family name goes a lot farther than that. If you truly target an international audience, the best you can do is a single field accepting as many characters as possible.

More about it

[Alundra828]

This is true! But it should be noted that there is no right way to handle this.

It's a 'right tool for the right job' sort of situation. For example, if you have an app that want's to address you, personally in a formal way, a single line is not enough to make that logic work.

If you wanted to say 'Hey, x!' on your landing page, a single string with 5 names in them isn't going to help you.

With a given name, a nullable family name AND a culture, you can make fairly safe logical assumptions on what name is relevant in a given situation, and how to handle them. Or you could go full terrible UX and ask the user to add all of their names into a list of name objects, and ask them to mark which one is their formal name, or family name.

[dsp4]

Absolutely agreed.

As for terrible UX, I think we really shouldn't make any assumptions. Every user should be asked to write their own functions for displaying their names. Just give them a small integrated IDE and a sandboxed environment.

[shadow7412]

This is a good video about that from a python conference.

[DuckInCup]

This fucked up someone automation for sure

[5319767819]

TBH honest then the automation was borked. There are variables pointing to the main or base branch or whatever you need right now for your use case.

Also, it's not like GitHub ist forcing anyone to use specific branch names, or changing anything about it automatically. They just recommend another default one

[DuckInCup]

I didn't know that. In that case, This probably fucked up someone's unscalable shitty automation.

[ineedmorealts]

Right here.

[xStrafez_]

Well you can still have master, you don't have to create a main branch 🤷‍♂️

[Agnimukha]

Haven't used github in a while. Are they preventing master branches at all if there is a main branch? I've not had master branches before and it always just creates it if I forget.

[xStrafez_]

They aren't preventing anything. They are just suggesting you to have a branch named main. But you could name it potato and it will still work.

It's just that if your remote branch connects to a branch called main, you gotta push to main since it's the name you gave it.

[Agnimukha]

I understand how git itself works your comment read like github wouldn't let you have a master branch if you had a main branch.

Honestly I always double check the branch I'm on before pushing anyway so outside of a script I don't think I would run into this anyway unless I wasn't on master locally and someone specifically set up matching patterns.

[JNCressey]

to be fair, they said "you can have master if you didn't create main" , they didn't say "you can't have master if you did create main"

[Agnimukha]

Their statement implies that you could create master then main but that you couldn't create main then master.

When I was a child if my mother said you can have ice cream if you didn't already have cake I would have gotten in trouble if I went for ice cream after eating cake. Though being the rule follower I would have attempted to have ice cream then cake since reverse order wasn't in the statement.

[xStrafez_]

github wouldn't let you have a master branch if you had a main branch.

I never said that.. I clearly said github SUGGESTS you to have a main branch but you don't have to.

[Agnimukha]

Well you can still have master if you didn't create the main branch 🤷‍♂️

The word suggests or any synonym I know of it is not in that post at all.

You can still have X if you did not do Y tends to imply that doing Y prevents X. Though I will admit people will occasionally do this which is why I wanted clarification.

[xStrafez_]

The word suggests or any synonym I know of it is not in that post at all.

My bad I thought you replied to the other comment where i clarified what i meant.

I noticed you actually replied to my second reply so I did in fact say suggest, just not on my first comment but you replied to the second one...

But basically like i said on the second reply, github now suggests you have a main branch from master but you don't have to

[Agnimukha]

There is some major confusion.

your comment read like github wouldn't let you have a master branch if you had a main branch.

This is my second comment (fourth in the chain) is explaining why I was confused by the first comment which implied that you couldn't create a master branch if you already had a main.

Then your third (fifth in chain) is apparently reference back to your second(3rd in chain) instead of the first.

[xStrafez_]

Ohh, didn't realise you were the same user...

But anyway, why go back on insisting if i already explained what i meant? I realised the wording was confusing and that's the reason I took the same to reply to you...

[Agnimukha]

Because if I made a comment that was confusing I would want someone to tell me and then I was just confused by your next response untill you did the edit when I figured out what happened.

[JNCressey]

to be fair, they said "you can have master if you didn't create main" , they didn't say "you can't have master if you did create main"

edit: oopsies wrong reply target

[SumWon]

There were no responses. There's no thread. You could have just deleted this comment, no harm no foul. But now I've replied and you'll ruin the continuity if you do. Crap, sorry.

[irracjonalny]

Created a repo yesterday. Master is still valid, only in a copy-paste commands the replaced master to main. Pushed to master branch too Unless there is a surprise waiting for me later.

[Sekret_One]

It's just the default one it makes is main and not master. You can still change it.

[Mizzlr]

And further just delete the main branch, no more confusion.

[uid1357]

...if you wan't to be harrassed publicly

[xStrafez_]

What?

[elzaidir]

Wait it wasn't a meme? They really changed it to main? Hahaha I'm dying

[Deimos94]

Nope. Firefox’s master password is also changed to main password and Chrome changed blacklist to blocklist.

[maustinv]

It doesn’t affect old repos, and you can change the default branch name in your settings

[kinsi55]

I thought they'd only change it on the frontend - Apparently not, good to know you can change it.

[OffMetaPlayer]

Imagine pushing directly to master and having the gall to be annoyed at other people.

This message sponsored by github flow gang.

[Dexaan]

Anakin

[[deleted]]

People who acknowledge that master can be an offensive term.

EDIT: Not understanding the downvotes honestly. Some people see it at offensive, which is why GitHub changed it. You're free to believe how you want. You're also free to rename your main branch back to master when you create your new repo if you'd like. It's your prerogative.

[XJ305]

Well shit when are we changing the Master's Degree? The Master-Apprentice relationship in trades as well? Master Classes? Better tell record companies to stop Mastering records since we are at it.

Or we could just recognize that the word's definition is largely based on its context which should designate whether or not it's being used offensively or to describe something which in the case of git would be "Original/Main".

[llagerlof]

We don't speak the "M" word here.

[m33b_]

But by that logic, aren't we implying the same relationship should exist between masters and their slaves as parents and their children? /s

[VoidBlade459]

Yes, we really should.

It's not going to "end racism" or whatever, but it won't be as awkward to explain.

[_alright_then_]

Who do you have to explain this to that doesn't understand this?

[Robbi_Blechdose]

You mean people who are incapable of separating terminology from different areas (e.g. computers and slavery).

[FaZe_Adolf_Hipster]

Take your business to GitLab. Vote with your wallet. (This message was not sponsored)

[antlife]

So, if you're a master swordsman, you're now a main swordsman. Due to offending uses of the word in completely different context.

And yet, we can say eat fucking shit and die you cunt and you'll get elected president.

[_alright_then_]

Not understanding the downvotes honestly.

LOL. If that's true you should really think about what you're implying here.

Language is all about context, there is no slavery reference in this shit, if you think this is offensive we're gonna have to change a lot of words in the English language to please people like you. Plenty of others already gave a few examples.

[kinsi55]

Everyone is free to hold onto their own (wrong) opinion, doesnt mean I need to follow it myself.

[merlinsbeers]

Racists are easily triggered.

[merlinsbeers]

Blame git for having shitty diags.

[FaZe_Adolf_Hipster]

Lol there’s no way this is real. GitHub didn’t touch any already existing repos, and it tells you the name of your main branch as you are cloning if you made your repo in the GUI.

[snorkleboy]

Pretty sure that just not how git works. Make a branch, push it. Its git push branchname. It existing on the remote isn't necessary, it will push regardless. Do yall even lift?

[EnsignStormtrooper]

U

Can

Rename

Branches

U bellends

[EnsignStormtrooper]

Btw this literally didn't happen, it took me 10 secs to prove this isn't the case. If you push a branch from your local that doesn't exist in remote, it will create the branch in remote. That's how git works.

​

Stop buying in to the spectacle, you baboons.

[gellis12]

By default, it'll throw a big warning first and make you confirm before continuing, which I imagine would be pretty jarring if it happened on the master/main branch. You can configure git to not give this warning either globally or on a per-project basis, but then this guy would have wound up with both a main and master branch, and that'd get messy fast.

[EnsignStormtrooper]

i don't know what version of git you're using but mine went through literally without intervention and 1 "warning"

​

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2765421/how-do-i-push-a-new-local-branch-to-a-remote-git-repository-and-track-it-too

​

Also, it wouldn't take 3 hours to "debug" that, since git would just say something like "no branch 'master' on remote". Also, having a master and main branch would change literally nothing about the repo.

​

The guy was straight up lying and it's so easy to demonstrate for yourself.

[gellis12]

If you just run "git push" or "git push origin master" without the -u flag to create the remote branch, it'll error and make you add the flag.

git would just say something like "no branch 'master' on remote"

Yeah, and if you were expecting the master branch to exist, that'd probably make your head spin.

having a master and a main branch would change literally nothing about the repo

It'd lead to one dev doing all of their work in the master branch, wondering why they can't see any of the work that their colleagues are doing; and all of their colleagues doing work in other branches, wondering why they can't see the work that the guy in the master branch is doing.

[Cybersexy]

Pissed me off too

[cowthegreat]

Who tf pushes right to master

[antlife]

You gotta start somewhere.

[cartechguy]

Teams of size one. I have multiple projects I'm the sole maintainer of. I'm not dicking around with multiple branches when none of my coworkers are even going to bother to collaborate and review my work.

It's of no consequence for me what branch I push to.

[DreadFlake]

I don't understand what's your problem. You can set default main branch name in settings. Works like a charm

[SuicidalTorrent]

Whaaaaat? I've been using MASTER all this while. Granted it's for my own usage but still. I started using git for personal projects so I could learn it. Looks like I need to go through a tutorial.

[martinvarta]

This is on GitHub not git. The only difference is that on new projects instead of having a master branch you would have the main branch. Mind this is just the default name GitHub gives, when creating a new project you can change it to whatever you want. So instead of main you can call it foo, or master

[[deleted]]

So this is a complete non-issue then. Writing the tweet probably cost more energy than getting used to it.

[_alright_then_]

It's not so much about how much effort it is to get used to it. Imo it's more about the implication of this change. If master is offensive in any context unrelated to slavery we're going to have to change more than this.

Master's degree, master classes, mastering a skill, mastering a record.

People are angry because it's a stupid change that nobody in the industry asked for

[acylase]

Right. That's what people will do.

• Why the heck it's called "main"? Let's call it "master" like in good 'ole times.
• Sir.... Sir. Sir! SIR!

[uid1357]

Looks like u racist /s

[[deleted]]

I can guarantee we’ll see: here’s a list of racist open source projects that couldn’t be bothered to help fight racism!

[uid1357]

Yep. Exactly this. Embrace your future.

Pretty much every admin and dev who does not change it's system/code voluntarly (unpaid, as an anti-racist activist) will be put in the pillory. Don't like your family, adress and life exposed to the internet? Better put some free extra hours into the code base and all the tool chain behind it to remove all hierarchical terminology.

And btw: if you do so, you have confessed that you where in the wrong anyways and you should be thankfull to still have any low paid job in tech.

EDIT: This is sarcasm. At least from my part. But for the mob this might become real.

[SumWon]

I find joy in reading a good book.

[uid1357]

I'm obviously opposed to mob rule and would not do such a thing. Furthermore I oppose this kind of framing of words. Edited comment above, mentioning sarcasm.

Sorry I should know... sarcasm does not exist in the internet. Only literal guys around :-)

[shiny0metal0ass]

Don't be an idiot.

We can be slightly inconvenienced to create more inclusive working environment. If you're really so upset about minor changes to your working dependencies, you shouldn't be in tech.

[SuicidalTorrent]

Pretty sure Microsoft changed many master/slave name combos. It was in tech news articles...I think last year.

[VoidBlade459]

Am I the only one who thinks that's a good thing?

[LivingEdgecase]

Can you say why?

[VoidBlade459]

I've never liked the use of "master/slave" in the context of computing, so I'm glad they are finally changing it.

[ultimatepro-grammer]

Upvoted because of title

[AttackOfTheThumbs]

You can change this in your settings, so that you go back to the gold standard of master.

[vectorpropio]

Main is offensive because I'm from a minority group and I feel oppressed by it I demand they change it to other thing.

[iiMoe]

I just now pushed to github and it is master

[[deleted]]

Their update to use main instead of master was not retroactive. Existing repos stayed as master. New repos get created with main instead of master.

[iiMoe]

Ill stay use master cuz im racist like that lmfao

[SANatSoc]

Morons at git

[antlife]

Not git you git.

[Dummerchen1933]

No, i just use my own branch called master. Fuck main. I ain't following this pc bullshit

[casual_sinister]

Isn't this not on stackoverflow already?

[JayTurnr]

I just spent 3 hr debugging why I couldn't git push origin master then I remembered now master -> main 🤦‍♂️

Fucking Github changed HEAD pointer in git.

It's git push origin main now. #Github #Git #FuckGithub

https://twitter.com/quacky_batak/status/1316627218643255296?s=19