I am still salty that git master was renamed to main... I mean, the rename is stupid, but when you remain it, why not bough? Bough was the obvious and perfect choice...

That I had to google for your used definition is why. Trunk would be plausible.

Yes you branch off of trunk. Trunk was the main branch in TFVC and maybe others, Linus may have wanted it to be different.

there's a setting in git to set the default branch to master for all new git repos you make. I did that and now I can just keep going like nothing ever happened

up until gitlab/GitHub stop viewing master as the dominant branch I guess, and cite "it's irrelevant now, you should've updated you dinosaur"

at any rate DEI is now a negative finance sentiment. so by all accounts we might move back to master. ESG ratings were removed from S&P 500 and those big corpos ages ago. now if a company mentions that stuff they're considered risky to invest in. the political thing has run its course

Had to merriam-webster the thing over here.

Donald Trump should sign a decree to rename it back to master today.

@spongessuck git is a graph, not a tree (yes, sourcetree is wrong). There is no root branch that every other branch is branching off from. main or master is just a convention for the default branch.

@Lensflare my point is if we still call them branches then trunk makes more sense than master/main.

@spongessuck Not sure if I agree. Yes, branches imply trees, but on the other hand, we also talk about branching off when something might merge again later. Such as roads or flow diagrams.

@jestdotty I've done this and every repo I create uses the master branch, had my boss ask me why I use "master", told him it's the default (which it still is, GitHub put the rename command as part of their instructions) and I add the remote using my IDE. I also doubt they'll ever be able to actually make it retire.

Also, it was called main after the main-character-syndrome the imbecile had who complained about the term

@BordedDev no, it was a white person who complained about "master" being racist against black people.

@Lensflare I didn't mention the race.... they're still an imbecile. MFer doesn't even know English, no clue why they listened to it

While I haven't asked Linus, I'm fairly sure it has to do with a "master" copy, the same as in audio

@BordedDev agree about the imbecile.
You didn‘t mention race but that was indeed the reason to get rid of master.
In case it wasn‘t clear: Yes IMO, this reason is retarded.

@BordedDev you need to understand, for those people, it‘s not about the original meaning of the name master for git. It‘s about how black people supposedly might associate it with slavery when they read it.
Of course black people don’t give a shit.
But some morons think that they need to be SJWs and protect the poor black people from such a bad word.

@Lensflare Ah sorry those were meant to be comments to different items, the remark about Linus was for the "main or master is just a convention for the default branch."

Sometimes I forget how easy it is to lose context in text

On the "for those people":

I carry disdain for those people since they've actively harmed my culture and the culture of people I care about. Thanks for bringing context

@Lensflare well associating black people as being offended by it is the racist thing

then black people have the identity of slave... instead of being able to have any other identity. like by "their sensitivity" they reinforce the victimhood identity and perpetuate it

kicker is these people are told this as a narrative and taught to be sensitive and afraid and that this is their legacy, which is really the actual fucked up part. literally make your identity anything else

Hmm, renaming to "in development"/"release" might have been a practical option as well