this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
295 points (89.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

26772 readers
3145 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Someone suggested queen and worker. Luffy and then branches named after crew members also seemed nice. Another suggested dom and sub. Leader and cultist were other suggestions. For any StarCraft mod it should be Kerrigan and Raynor, or OverMind and Zerg, or for the later stages Amon and Protoss.

I love all those suggestions. Keeps things interesting and conveys the same thing.

[–] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why not call it trunk and make it all tree themed

[–] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Cause git doesn't work that way. There is no trunk. It's all branches.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 4 points 21 hours ago

But that's not actually true in general; there is a default branch concept in forges, and an integration and/or release branch in most recommended workflows. That's the trunk.

[–] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What is a trunk if not a large branch

[–] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Oh, that's valid, and forks could be called "asexual propagation"

Cherry picking from one trunk to another could be called grafting.

There is already pruning.

If there is no AI used, it could be called GMO.

I'm not sure if there is a tree analogy for merging trunks together, however.

To be completely fair, I've worked in places that treat Git like it's an over-engineered SVN and use the SVN workflow, fighting against the current the entire way. "trunk" would be just fine with that crowd.

[–] Hoimo@ani.social 38 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I use master and apprentice. Always two there are, no more, no less.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 1 points 22 hours ago

Why isn’t there a journeyman Sith though?

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 10 points 2 days ago

So that's why Sith were considered evil

[–] Morose@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Only a sith deals in absolutes, I will do what I must.

I think will actually start using this “master” and “apprentice” now. Love it lol

[–] CodenameDarlen@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I dislike master because main is shorter and faster to type

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)
[–] oplkill@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Some newbie at project: git checkout -b main_problem_task123

[–] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 18 points 2 days ago

The best reason is always in the comments

[–] raman_klogius@ani.social 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Treat branches like Chinese dynasties. The mainline branch is the one having the mandate of heaven.

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 11 points 2 days ago

And they tend to fracture and rejoin seemingly at random, but with certain regularity

[–] TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m fairly confident the random branches I spin off to try out a dumb idea are not equal to main.

[–] Skibbidi@programming.dev 14 points 2 days ago

I know mine are worth less than others.

[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm... I'm not sure that's the flex you think it is.

[–] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 50 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think it's mostly a shitpost lol

[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk -1 points 2 days ago

You're not wrong.

[–] hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think 'master' is fine for the master branch. It's a master copy of the codebase.

I think 'main' is fine for the main branch. It's the main branch of the repo.

I use 'main' at work cos that's what my git client defaults to. I use 'master' at home because that's what my git client defaults to. 🤷‍♂️

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Main do be a bit less left hand heavy. Which depending on the user may find as a disadvantage.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

I do whatever work wants me to do. you want "main" or "icecream" as the production branch, whatever.

I'll keep using master for all my personal repos because it's a master record of the source from which all other branches are derived. it's like the difference between "read" and "read". spelled the same but completely different definitions.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Imagine the mess in a thousand people project where all branches are "equal"

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

I work on a few repos that have branches that are rarely merged to the default one and it's quite annoying

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago

... Has anyone adopted a 'Master' - 'Padawan' paradigm?

[–] gigachad@piefed.social 5 points 2 days ago

git config --global init.defaultBranch main

[–] Little8Lost@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

The next release branch is the one i am currently working on. No need to merge it back to the other one

i just call my main git branches trunk