Oh god please tell me this isn’t a real thing
I could. But I’d prefer not to lie
Still in school?
I’ve been a dev at 8 places over 28 years and have never heard of this level of incompetence since git came along. Prior to git, with cvs, svn, tfs, vss - yeah, lots of incompetence because the tools sucked. Git solves all those problems tho!
I’m a purist. The stable and persistent main branch, regardless of what you want to call it, should always and only ever be exactly the same as the code that’s currently deployed to the production server. Generally the only exception is for the short duration between a push and deployment under normal circumstances.
But every job I’ve ever had, there’s at least one maverick who knows git way better than anybody else and is super advanced, so they do their own thing which is totally better in a million different ways but essentially fucks everybody else over. And I’m not even here to say they aren’t smarter than the rest of us and I’m sure that somehow their process is better than what we currently do. But with version control, my anecdotal experience has been that the most important things for running smoothly are: consistency and having everybody on the same page. Process doesn’t need to be perfect, maximally efficient, bleeding edge, etc to achieve that.
All merges to main auto deploy to staging. Tagged merges to main also go to production.
We use main this has been reported to hr
We use main now
I’m glad I’m not part of “we”
Why do you care
Because this whole discussion is fucking stupid. There was no good reason for a change.
You doth protest too much. Wonder why
Because the argument is stupid. Much like pointers not being a good term to use because it’s rude to point. Or man pages being sexist.
What’s stupid is that people like you argue about a branch name instead of just cede the point as if it costs anyone anything to
Actually this cost a lot of time and money. Even today I have to take an extra step to see if master or main is use . Before it was standard.
Curse this
I like the actual look of the word “main” more than I do the word “master”. I think it’s because it looks like a neat semi-circle
It also makes more sense.
The good reason was that it bothered some people. “Main” is two fewer letters, so it’s even more convenient to type. So what’s the problem?
European here. I’m a supporter of civil rights and against racism and so on, but that controversy with master vs main for me is just a silly us american controversy, as master has more meanings that just owner of a slave (and in this context, it’s not even related to that master-slave thing as used to be in hardware naming).
The issue is that kind of (in my pov, unnecessary) change caused an outage in my company as some k8s objects changed its label because of this kind of controversy, and some of our selectors were not ready for that change, as iirc this happened in a minor version upgrade. We also had to invest development hours to update internal tooling to support that change too (and I bet, a lot of companies did the same).
Agree with this. Never changed from master as it would cost the business money to do so (and involve a ton of headaches) for no reason. Thankfully the whole dept agreed on that.
We have a
deployedbranch. It doesn’t get merged intomasteruntil it gets reviewed… the technical debt got too big so it never gets reviewed and we just keep branching offdeployedYes, we’ve had first
masterbranch, but what about secondmasterbranch?Ah yes, by the end of the week we will have achieved full apotheosis:
master-final-v3-deployed-2025_08_01-usethisone
jesus
He can’t help you. Y’all need Linus.
What’s he going to do? Drop commits? /s
He drops commits but keeps on forgetting
What he wrote down, CI goes so loud
He tags the release but it won’t go out
E2es choking now, pipeline’ jokin’ now
Clock’s run out, time’s up, over, blaow.
Main* branch.
Don’t want to sound racist
