Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The only reason main is worse than master objectively speaking is breaking old code. The name main is shorter and more accurate for the purposes of git (given the way branches work in git, there is not necessarily a "master copy", more that there is a primary branch)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Main isn't even the main branch, I do all of my work in other branches. I just use master to press new releases

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The master branch is the oldest and wisest one :marseyninja:


Give me your money and I'll annoy people with it :space: https://i.rdrama.net/images/16965516366194396.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Plus it enslaves the other branches

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It learns from them and merges their knowledge into itself :marseywholesome:


Give me your money and I'll annoy people with it :space: https://i.rdrama.net/images/16965516366194396.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thinking about removing all confusion and going with git init -b slavemaster

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

massa

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Changing it is also a sort of bait to weed out NPCs.

(It works for both leftoid and rightoid NPCs.)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:soycry: "No you can't have a branch named master! It makes me think about Black people and American slavery and makes me feel bad!"

:soyjakmaga: "Noooo master means the reference copy or something old and wise! This concept totally works when branches are just pointers to commits and don't actually carry any special state!"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.