HN Explorer

Discussion on renaming master branch gets heated, then shut down

33 points by jansan ↗ HN
The discussion about renaming "master" branches to "main" or "default" in git for windows to address issues with "non-inclusive naming" has become very heated. The vast majority of developers argued against the change, some very vocal.

This resulted in git for windows administrators to go full exclusive and shut down the discussion completely for non team members, block many users and delete or minimize a large number of tweets.

https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674

The end of the thread looks like a massacre.

56 comments

[ 392 ms ] story [ 2006 ms ] thread
phakding
As a rabid liberal, I think this is a stretch.
info781
School master? Head master?
vr46
They don’t use those terms anymore as I discovered when talking to a great friend who is very decorated by the establishment for being a “Head Teacher”.
verdverm
Master of Ceremony, Master Switch, Gramdmaster
Jetroid
Master Boot Record
sawmurai
Master of Social Science ... ohhhh
valand
Dammit I got called to the head default room again...
gimboland
None of which have any association with master/slave, unlike git where the convention of calling the default branch "master" comes from BitKeeper, with its master/slave repositories.
sharken
Grandmaster Flash is ok i guess :p
EForEndeavour
I honestly can see middle schoolers snickering at the fact that their school's authority figure is seriously and officially referred to as "head" teacher.
ch_sm
I‘ve always found the term „master bedroom“ weird.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
jayd16
But its not master as in master/slave (which I assume is the concern?) There is no slave branch. Its master like main or premier. Like a master bedroom.
gimboland
Are you sure about that? I've seen a number of reports over the last few days that "master" in git is basically a holdover from BitKeeper which had master/slave repositories (and that in BitKeeper you use repos to "do" branching). I haven't looked into this in enough depth to convince myself either way, but I would do so before echoing your first sentence. Certainly a _lot_ of people are assuming it means "master copy" and has nothing to do with master/slave, but there do seem to be reasons to believe that's not actually historically true, i.e. a flawed assumption.

Edit: getting downvoted for pointing out something true; somebody's feeling uncomfortable...

jayd16
You're right that I do not know the history. It might not be historically true but I would argue that's irrelevant to the conversation. (even as non relevant the conversation is to begin with!) Current perception is what matters.

Beyond that, seems like if it actually did refer to a master/slave architecture, it seems like there would be more reason to keep it describing what it is. Maybe the term invokes some violence but so does the kill command.

karmakaze
I used to use 'master' and 'read-slave' database nodes. I'm happier with 'writer' and 'read-replica'. I would say this is definitely in context.
jayd16
Yeah. "Slave" doesn't really make sense for read replica. What would be a better term for a build master with worker nodes?
taylodl
Build coordinator and build workers, or even build manager and build workers.
codegladiator
> I had actually started with "default", and was told it might be triggering for folks in financial trouble?

So now 'default' is out too ? This is absurd.

executive
Trunk is out too, since people hunt elephants.
smitty1e
We need to reconsider using the Roman alphabet and English language at all, if Progress is to be achieved.
CREwert
true, but elephants dont speak English.
karmakaze
What was wrong with 'main'?
doubleunplussed
It's a very overloaded term. if someone says `master` I know they're talking about the git branch. If they say `main`, they could be talking about `main.c`, the `main()` function, or just using the regular English word 'main' as an adjective. `master` is very unambiguous due to not otherwise being a commonly used word in software. `trunk` or `mainline` would be better names than `main` for that reason (though mainline sometimes refers to specific people's master branches as with Linux, so that would unfortunately be colliding with that).
exabrial
git master means "Mastering a skill", "Mastering a recording", or to "Master oneself".

Please no virtue-signalling crap like this. It's a harmful distraction.

gimboland
You sure about that? Might want to google "git bitkeeper master slave" before making up your mind.
ClumsyPilot
The meaning should be assesed in today's context, not based on an obscure piece of software that existed decades ago, and most people have never heard of.

The person could be factually wrong, but in a cultural sence he is correct - the word has another meaning.

gimboland
OK, but those are only your opinions, even though you're stating them as if they're facts. Someone coming from a different culture might have a different opinion, of course.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
l1ska
I don't get it, if it makes someone uncomfortable, why not change it. What difference does it make?
jayd16
There's a ton of software that assumes the main branch is labeled master.
gimboland
That software is broken if it doesn't allow you to configure this (just as git does).
jayd16
You're right. But there's a lot of broken software out there that just trudges on with momentum.

That said, I'm pretty sure you can just make a main branch and delete master in your personal repos. I don't think git itself needs master, does it?

Jetroid
There's a lot of 'broken' software that assumed any Windows version number with a 9 in it was made in the 90s. That doesn't mean that we can (nor should) throw out that software.
alexandercrohde
Sounds like a non-story? I'm not sure what the value is in linking it here, other than to try to provoke a similarly controversial flare.
Etheryte
That's over a 100 comments, many of them very calm and neutral, marked off-topic, over 10 people blocked, and then the whole discussion locked. I get that this is can be a heated discussion, but honestly most (although surely, not all) of those comments are about as neutral as it gets on this matter.
smitty1e
It's almost as though there were a prevailing orthodoxy, and dissent is so much CVS code.
Jetroid
Whilst in theory, I'm neutral to the change on ethical grounds, I think in practice it will make things very confusing.

Master/Slave is such an established pair of terms in tech that they have a loaded meaning as soon as you see them.

If I see 'Master' and 'Slave' on an old hard disk, I know what that is. If I see "Configure one device to the master setting and the rest to slave.", I get a understanding of the relationship for free.

I don't think we will get that with replacement terms, at least not in the short term, and we're just setting ourselves up for confusion.

gimboland
Right. And the fact that you don't find those terms offensive is part of your privilege. You're being invited to step outside of yourself and consider that for some people, it's not as clear-cut / apolitical as it is for you.
derision
Every non-white person I've seen commenting on this change has expressed they couldn't care less and do not give a second thought to these naming conventions. Maybe we should let their voices be heard rather than continue to try to speak for them?
zzo38computer
I think that is a valid point. While I have not asked people about this myself, the article on All The Tropes wiki about "Political Correctness Gone Mad" has examples of people trying to change things to avoid offending people, resulting in the people they are trying to avoid offending complaining about it.
sebazzz
It is the few that speak the loudest and will _never_ be happy, no matter what. There will always be something that needs to be changed.
gimboland
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; my experience differs from yours.
Jetroid
Maybe it is offending people, maybe it isn't. I hold no doubt that the concept or slavery is offensive, but I haven't actually seen an argument from a PoC saying that it offends them. Nobody alive today was a slave during the time that it was legal in USA/UK, etc. I'd hold a very different view if we were having this discussion in the 1800s. As I said, I haven't actually seen any significant outcry about this from the relevant communities, for lack of a better term.

My argument goes more along the lines that changing something like this can cause more harm than good in some cases, given that we have years of established documents using these definitions.

As an example from science, the reason that the direction of conventional current goes opposite to the flow of electrons is because we found out new information, but decided it was too costly to change.

If we remove the Master/Slave terminology from everything new effective today, then in 20 years, will a new developer know that 'Main/Secondary' in their 2021 datasheet is referring to the same thing as 'Master/Slave' from their 1991 datasheet?

Possibly, but also maybe not. A smart person could infer this and another could search it, but there is still potential for confusion.

zikzak
I am no expert, but to me the debate is the same as switching from gendered pronouns to saying "they". I try not to use "he" or "she" in my documentation now. I say "they" or "the user". I don't do this because I have dyed hair and a nose ring. I do it because it is an incredibly easy to do and removes gender from the docs. That's it. Gender adds no information in technical docs most of the time and has the potential to bias information. I don't even care that much about this issue but it is just easy to do. No one is confused by this or even mentions it.

So, say we start using main and secondary. Someone smart enough to be reading a datasheet will probably figure this out. Right? I work in several different programming languages in any given week (SQL, C#, JavaScript, various data formats, and so on). I don't get confused when the name of a data type is a little different between these.

I am not trying to be rude or mean, I am just saying we can change terms. I mean, my god, we changed from Imperial to Metric while I was in elementary school. We changed an entire system of weights and measures for an entire country (Canada). That was a big deal.

Going from master/slave to main/secondary (or whatever) is not a big deal.

It's like "rule of thumb". I no longer use this phrase. Most people have no idea that this is based on how a stick a man may beat his wife with must be no thicker than the size of his thumb. But some people do. I do. And, yeah, I am sure this will be a "turns out" where a cabal of feminists spread this rumour to make white men feel bad, but I don't care. I don't say it any more. I figured out a new way to talk about a general guideline that is widely applicable and simple.

It's not a big deal.

renewiltord
Who genuinely gives a shit. Name it whatever you want. The less important things are, the more people will discuss them.
zzo38computer
I think that there is no need to change these things. If you make a new version control system, then you can use whichever name you think is best (presumably whichever one is most descriptive, but not too long), but we need not change existing ones, nor change projects using them to use different names.

I personally don't use git, but the naming of the default branch has nothing to do with it. I use Fossil, which uses "trunk" as the name for the default branch. I don't know what reason they chose this, but I don't really care much; I just use that because it is the software I use (even if some people hate it, which I suppose is inevitable).

I also think that other terminology such as blacklist/whitelist, master/slave, etc need not be changed, unless the old terms are confusing or incorrect, which in some contexts there is the possibility that they might be. In some cases, such as motherboard vs mainboard, BC/AD vs BCE/CE, both sets of terms are in use so it is helpful to know them.

Political correctness has gone mad (although this is nothing new, really).

EForEndeavour
> I use Fossil, which uses "trunk" as the name for the default branch. I don't know what reason they chose this, but I don't really care much

The "default branch" of a tree is a trunk, from which branches emerge.

sebazzz
Let me state first of all that I am fully aware of the fact that I do not know what it is like to be the target of (classic) racism. Nor will I deny that there are some things that are just not right.

However, where things go wrong in this discussion is the people who make complaining their profession. Surely you can think of some textbook examples of this. If you as a society conform to these people, the stock is not finished. Then there comes the next problem and the next, and so on and so forth.

Part of the population, often a minority, is very much in favor of this. Another part of the population feels attacked by this and will resist strongly. The rest will be somewhere in between, but what is almost always the case is that these kinds of discussions lead to divisions within society. Division is often accompanied by strong emotions and strong opinions, which in turn leads to hateful behavior against each other. That often expresses itself in racism.

And in principle that is not necessarily an insurmountable problem, provided there is enough interest in change. But there we come back to the point that many professional activists will never be good enough. Of course, it cannot be the case that all aspects of a culture and a country must be fully adapted. Certainly not at the expense of cohesion within society, with all the negative consequences that entails.

What you get now is that everything, irrelevant and unnecessary, that can be classified as politically correct, is allowed. In fact, a critical view of the whole situation is immediately perceived as incorrect and racist. You now have the choice of fully conforming to this politically correct thinking and action, or you may experience serious negative consequences. Then I am talking about dismissal or a completely destroyed reputation. If you are also a white person, the consequences are only greater.

And that is why I talked about classic racism in the beginning of my speech. Racism unfortunately also takes place the other way. A colored person may as well be a racist and a white person may as well be a victim of racism. What is completely ridiculous, however, is that there seem to be many people who believe that racism can exist exclusively with a colored person as its victim.

Anyway, what I mainly want to go to, is that we should take a critical look at abuses within our society, but certainly not lose sight of reality. We need to live together more and better and not just get further away from each other. That also means that you sometimes have to be able to say: "now it is enough", "this is going too far". And that you will not then be called Hitler.

If you tell your partner you love him or her every 10 minutes, it will lose value. It is no different in this matter.

And let's not forget that there is always someone who can take offense somewhere. Should we just adjust everything? (Of course people take offense again ...)

Note though that colored people are (much) more often victims of racism. Racism doesn't necessarily have to be words to someone.

I treat people the way they treat me. If I don't know them, I treat them the way I want to be treated. I have never (consciously) been guilty of racism.

What I take offense is that I cannot safely express my, quite subtle and nuanced, opinion on this topic. Not because my opinion is so radical, but because it is apparently not allowed to apply nuance at all and it only consists of right or wrong.

The fact that I am white also means that I can afford less in this discussion. And I experience that as discrimination and racism.

cyberprunes
I was inclined to agree until the choice to use the term "colored person". That's an obvious and well known racist trope with very recent historical ties to segregation. I'm not sure if it was a deliberate statement on political correctness but I really think it undermines your argument and makes it seem like a disingenuous crock of horse manure.
sebazzz
I'm sorry you feel offended by the term coloured person. I meant to say "everyone who is not white". In my country the words don't come over as hard but I see that this not the case in English language and foreign culture.
hbogert
for me as a non-american, I have to say it's really a mine-field what word is offensive or not in this decade. Black was wrong in the nineties iirc, but's okay now. Colored, seems to have a connotation as well, which to a lot of foreigners is just arbitrariness.

The intolerance for non-american cultures who use other words, which might be controversial in america, is just baffling.

> I was inclined to agree until the choice to use the term "colored person".

You are disqualifying a person from discussion while his intent and tone were pretty neutral (imo). If you don't see the irony of that, then god help us all (idomatic, bc I'm an atheist.)

cyberprunes
Whenever a white person claims reverse racism or discrimination and then brings to light what that instance entailed I have yet to find that it comes close to what a black person experiences as racism. (Maybe you are different) It may feel unfair to you but you just aren't going to get far on the white people experience racism too argument. It's a loser except among other white people with hurt feelings.