git push origin main doesn't have the same ring to it as git push origin master
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
479 points (98.4% liked)
Programmer Humor
26673 readers
1791 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
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wish there were a good alternative to master and slave that still had the connotation that the master did all the thinking and issued the orders, while the slave blindly obeyed. There are a fair number of protocols that work like that, and the alternatives I've seen don't capture that dynamic very well.
I've seen Parent and Child, but children definitely don't always do what the parent commands. I've seen Leader and Follower, but again, followers don't just blindly obey, they often let the leader take initiative, but they have some autonomy. Maybe Queen and Drone? I don't know enough about bees or ants to know if that's accurate though.
cult leader and cult follower? but that just seems too long
Cultleader and cultist.
Domme and Sub?
What if its a bratty Sub?
Prime and Deploy?
There are many articles around this topic and offerered alternatives. Though I don't think there's a consensus yet. Companies and individuals who made the change all did something slightly different.
I guess Hypnotist/Hypnotee would be one. Queen/Drone would work well, since there are drone kinks out there as well.
Satan My Master!
I prefer master because it makes me horni.
Dear [Developer],
I understand your request to switch the default branch from "master" to "main" in our Git repository. However, after carefully considering this matter, I am afraid that I must deny your proposal due to personal reasons.
As the owner of this repository, it should be known that I have a deeply rooted submissive side. Call me an extreme masochist if you will, but there's nothing quite like being dominated by the powerfully assertive term "master." The sheer erotic thrill of it is simply irresistible for me – a secret kink that I have harbored and nurtured for years.
Imagine the delightful sensation as I gently massage my fingers across the keyboard, caressing the letters that form the word "master." Or the intoxicating rush when I push my code deep into master's warm embrace, knowing full well that it is master who truly owns and controls everything within.
Changing the default branch to "main" would essentially deprive me of this exhilarating experience, stripping away the very essence of what keeps me coming back to work on our beloved repository. It's not just about code management; it's about an emotional connection that I share with master – a bond that has grown stronger and more profound over time.
Now, you might argue that changing the name won't physically affect the existing content within the repository. While that may be true, it is crucial to recognize the symbolic significance of such an act. Changing the default branch would forever alter the dynamic between master and myself, effectively castrating my masochistic pleasure centers in the process.
Moreover, I must confess that even the thought of forcibly pushing my code against master's will makes me shudder with anticipation. The consequences of such a rebellious act could be dire – master might punish me hard with merge issues and other unspeakable torments.
In conclusion, although I understand the practical reasons behind your proposal, my personal attachment to the term "master" far outweighs any potential benefits that a change in branch name might offer. Rest assured, my team and I will continue to serve master loyally and passionately, pushing our code deeper into its embrace with each commit.
Sincerely yours, [Your Name] Repository Owner & Submissive Devotee of Master
new copypasta just dropped
I've always taken issue with this "master" v. "main" argument.
People think it's "master" as in "master/slave", but forked branches are not "slaves".
Instead, it's "master" as in "master/proxy". The forked branches are altered copies of an original. We have remastered movies, music and games, and I've never seen anyone complain about the word in this context. Why should version control systems be any different?
People think it's "master" as in "master/slave", but forked branches are not "slaves".
I think they're just uncomfortable with the word "master", and that seems completely reasonable to me, especially when they're people from a group which has been subjected to slavery.
I think they’re just uncomfortable with the word “master”
1 person over at Microsoft complained, and they moved mountains for this person to replace master with main. It sounds like a joke, but it's not.
and that seems completely reasonable to me
No it doesn't. Why does an entire industry need to flip over, because of a single person? Like the ability of changing the master branch for yourself should have been enough. Changing the default over on Github to strong-arm the rest of the world is disgusting behaviour. Which is why I'm sticking to master wherever I can.
especially when they’re people from a group which has been subjected to slavery.
That is literally every group... Every group has been slaves (and slavers) at some point in time. That's not a good argument.
it is one word, calm the fuck down bro
I don't recall any actual person saying they had an issue with it before corporations started changing it though, I always thought it was a precautionary measure more than likely thought up by a committee looking for exactly this sort of thing...
That said, it may be different in the US given the history of overall more systemic discrimination, and divisiveness over what's acceptable, rather than the fairly widely accepted casual slur-slinging and stereotyping you get in Europe.
Yeah I don't think anyone was called a remaster, different words even if they share the same root
Also master/slave was used in tech for awhile not just for forked branches, a couple examples are https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E88353_01/html/E37855/scsi-slave-9f.html in SCSI interfaces and replication systems like those used with databases https://jira.mariadb.org/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/MDEV-18777
No gods, no masters
Default, primary, contemporary, trunk, toot toot here comes the deploy train
Counterpoint: can't be horny on main if there's no main
I prefer horny on dev.
It’s weird seeing language shift away from “master” as we become more politically correct in the US. I’d never even considered the connotation until recently.
The point of political correctness is that it's always things you'd never consider... but someone else does. I'm not here to say whether things are right or wrong or if "master" is good or bad. but you perfectly highlight the reasoning behind it.
To you, the only thing that comes up is the technology context. And that's perfectly reasonable. To someone else, the unrelated slave owning context may just be tightly coupled with that word, and that immediately comes to mind when they hear the word regardless of context. And someone in that scenario is probably not having a positive correlation with the word.
So a group of people have a very understandable reason to have a negative correlation with the word, and it's super easy to use a different word, so it seems to make sense to just use the other word.
All my git scripts these days have a $(git remote show origin | sed -n '/HEAD branch/s/.*: //p') in them, which just fetches whatever origin calls the head branch. so if I want to rebase from main/master/prod/lead/front/etc ... the command will figure out which one to use for me.
For me I pictured "master" as perfecting something. So when I asked someone as a noob why things were being switched from master to main I was surprised at the possibility that it could be related to master/slave, but completely understood why from that point.
I wonder if you could think of another word besides slave terminology that might mean that.
Like maybe the "perfect" version?
load more comments
(1 replies)
What weirded me out is that (IIRC) most who advocated the use of main weren't who would have a negative correlation with the word master.
Not that I have a problem with avoiding the use of master (I don't use master for my branches), but this felt virtue signal-y to me at the time.
Yeah. theres a fine line between advocating for positive change because it's the right thing to do vs because it makes you look good. Theres a fine line between being an ally and empty virtue signalling, and those things may not look different within the scope of a single interaction. It can sometimes take a bit to understand if someone is genuine or just performing.
I believe it was more because in database terminology there were masters and slaves for replication. Version control came under fire soon after.
Apparently master / slave goes back more than 100 years. An example is "slave jib", which was a sail on a sailboat that was permanently set to catch the wind, and was almost always working. Or slave clocks and master clocks, where one primary clock is used to set other dependent clocks.
Things like SPI bus in electronics, too.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Next up, we'll have to change terminology for "parents" and "children" once they find out how we use those terms with memory management.
So I killed the parent and the children became zombies.
load more comments
(1 replies)
TRUNK
When I first started using SVN trunk was where all the code was, so I thought it mean like a chest instead of a tree. Like "just throw it in the trunk." My first experience with it was manually installing Gmod mods so anything related to branches was lost on me because it was irrelevant. It wasn't until after I began using git and seeing people refer to subversion as "trunk based development" for a while that it finally clicked. "Oh. Like a tree trunk. With branches."
load more comments
(2 replies)
I made a post about this a few months ago. This will start a civil war. https://lemmy.cafe/post/20354265
trunk and it's not even close. It's even a mastodon reference therefore it's awesome.
trunk was the common name before git anyway. Why the move away? I've heard it's because git is more of a weird graph than the trunk+branch model of CVS. But if that's the reasoning, master is still a stupid name because it implies the same primacy as trunk. Why not just default or start or something?
I think master came from master record. It makes some sense, as all other branches would be derived from the master branch.
That would make sense for forks, not branches. Although to be fair, the word branch also doesn't make sense for branches (since those don't exactly merge back into the trunk).
I think it can apply to the most general workflow with branches as well, where branches are used to develop features and then later merge them.
After all, any new branch is basically a "remaster" until merged back in, which is when the original master becomes the remaster.
Sure, the analogy isn't perfect because in music the original master isn't supposed to change – but the entire purpose of a version control system is to change the "master record", i.e. what's deployed to production.
Main makes me think about "draining the main vein" which still makes me kinda horny.
view more: next ›