308
Master vs main (again) (lemmy.myserv.one)
top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] lena@gregtech.eu 87 points 1 week ago
[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

I prefer master exactly for that reason

[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

::sigh:: This is the correct answer for a buttplug.io based workflow.

[-] pelya@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago
[-] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 week ago

What are you doing step-branch?

[-] CodenameDarlen@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago

I dislike master because main is shorter and faster to type

[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[-] oplkill@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Some newbie at project: git checkout -b main_problem_task123

[-] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 18 points 1 week ago

The best reason is always in the comments

[-] Hoimo@ani.social 40 points 1 week ago

I use master and apprentice. Always two there are, no more, no less.

[-] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 11 points 1 week ago

So that's why Sith were considered evil

[-] Morose@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Only a sith deals in absolutes, I will do what I must.

[-] Captain_Faraday@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

I think will actually start using this “master” and “apprentice” now. Love it lol

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Why isn’t there a journeyman Sith though?

[-] raman_klogius@ani.social 36 points 1 week ago

Treat branches like Chinese dynasties. The mainline branch is the one having the mandate of heaven.

[-] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 12 points 1 week ago

And they tend to fracture and rejoin seemingly at random, but with certain regularity

[-] TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

I’m fairly confident the random branches I spin off to try out a dumb idea are not equal to main.

[-] Skibbidi@programming.dev 14 points 1 week ago

I know mine are worth less than others.

[-] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 26 points 1 week ago

I'm... I'm not sure that's the flex you think it is.

[-] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 week ago

I think it's mostly a shitpost lol

[-] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk -1 points 1 week ago

You're not wrong.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

I do whatever work wants me to do. you want "main" or "icecream" as the production branch, whatever.

I'll keep using master for all my personal repos because it's a master record of the source from which all other branches are derived. it's like the difference between "read" and "read". spelled the same but completely different definitions.

[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 week ago

Imagine the mess in a thousand people project where all branches are "equal"

[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I work on a few repos that have branches that are rarely merged to the default one and it's quite annoying

[-] hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think 'master' is fine for the master branch. It's a master copy of the codebase.

I think 'main' is fine for the main branch. It's the main branch of the repo.

I use 'main' at work cos that's what my git client defaults to. I use 'master' at home because that's what my git client defaults to. 🤷‍♂️

[-] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 10 points 1 week ago

I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was

[-] Gonzako@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Main do be a bit less left hand heavy. Which depending on the user may find as a disadvantage.

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago

Someone suggested queen and worker. Luffy and then branches named after crew members also seemed nice. Another suggested dom and sub. Leader and cultist were other suggestions. For any StarCraft mod it should be Kerrigan and Raynor, or OverMind and Zerg, or for the later stages Amon and Protoss.

I love all those suggestions. Keeps things interesting and conveys the same thing.

[-] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

... Has anyone adopted a 'Master' - 'Padawan' paradigm?

[-] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 6 points 1 week ago

Why not call it trunk and make it all tree themed

[-] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 week ago

Cause git doesn't work that way. There is no trunk. It's all branches.

[-] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 11 points 1 week ago

What is a trunk if not a large branch

[-] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Oh, that's valid, and forks could be called "asexual propagation"

Cherry picking from one trunk to another could be called grafting.

There is already pruning.

If there is no AI used, it could be called GMO.

I'm not sure if there is a tree analogy for merging trunks together, however.

[-] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago

But that's not actually true in general; there is a default branch concept in forges, and an integration and/or release branch in most recommended workflows. That's the trunk.

[-] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

To be completely fair, I've worked in places that treat Git like it's an over-engineered SVN and use the SVN workflow, fighting against the current the entire way. "trunk" would be just fine with that crowd.

[-] gigachad@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago

git config --global init.defaultBranch main

[-] Little8Lost@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

The next release branch is the one i am currently working on. No need to merge it back to the other one

i just call my main git branches trunk

this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
308 points (90.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

26875 readers
293 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS