- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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
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
masterwithmain. 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
masterbranch 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 tomasterwherever 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
Which is why I’m sticking to
masterwherever I can.that’ll show 'em, real grown up
Mistress vs main






