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
Rename master to fuck
- git rebase fuck
- git checkout fuck
- git checkout -b me
- git diff fuck…me
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.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.
Mistress vs main
