Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

lore.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 271 posts

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#151

Post by jameshilliard »

dspillett wrote: post #84
GhostVII wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't lost anything, but we've gained the expectation that we should be accommodating a tiny minority of people being offended for no reason. Sure it's not much work to switch "master" to "main" (although in aggregate it's probably a tonne of person hours), but what happens when the next trend is to be offended at "blacklist", or "sanity check", or any of the other thousands of words that someone is inevitably g…

> "blacklist" That has already happened in some places, though blacklist/whitelist are still the most common naming convention for that sort of thing. Blocklist is actually a better name IMO, and I've seen it used in places, and an easy enough change. I don't have any examples I remember of what people might use instead of whitelist though, allowlist doesn't particularly trip of the tongue IMO. Grandfathering is anot…

> Blocklist is actually a better name IMO, and I've seen it used in places, and an easy enough change.

You should try to avoid using "Blocklist" in most code IMO, it's ambiguous in a number of contexts as the word block itself is ambiguous and can mean very multiple different things such as blockchain blocks or data/filesystem blocks which would be something very different from the intended definition of a disallow rule.

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#153

Post by tw4l »

umvi wrote: post #142
wadkar wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am happy to see this. You say bullied into compliance but all I see is a community consciously putting efforts to become more inclusive. It may not be that big of a deal for you but it is a big deal for those who don’t share the same worldview as you. Are your principals so low that you wouldn’t accommodate change of language and behavior to be more welcoming of others? What do you think about people who curse like…

> but all I see is a community consciously putting efforts to become more inclusive In my opinion, agitating for these types of changes makes tech communities more polarized since you are now making things that didn't used to be political, highly politicized. It's not clear to me how changing the default branch name in a version control system and similar "inclusivity changes" makes the tech communities more inclusiv…

> I do very clearly see how it increases discord and contention in tech communities (see: this thread, previous threads on the topic, Code of Conduct threads, etc).

> And I think that increased discord and contention in communities is not worth increased inclusivity (however you measure that).

One measure of inclusivity might be hiring, retention, and promotion within the tech industry (and the developer subset of that) relative to the general population. Looking at the Stack Overflow 2020 survey results as one (admittedly biased) indicator, it's pretty clear that the tech industry does abysmally. As two quick examples: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2020#developer-pro...

Speaking from personal experience as one of those minorities, I don't think people who are outside of these underrepresented groups understand just how many small reminders a day we get that the "default" is for us not to be welcome.

Something like changing language that is rooted in ownership of people is not a huge change, admittedly, but the fact that so many people within the industry complain and fight it definitely serves as a reminder to me that I'm tolerated more than welcomed here.

Edit: Added some clarifying language

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#154

Post by aronpye »

I’m fascinated when people, including myself, are offended by noises other people make with their faces.

You can try to ban words, but that doesn’t abolish the thought that generated the word. However, that doesn’t stop people from trying.

Ultimately compelled speech is an attempt at mind control.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

“Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate that is the setting of dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell. To meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism in Oceania, the ruling English Socialist Party (Ingsoc) created Newspeak, a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual's ability to think and articulate "subversive" concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will. Such concepts are criminalized as thoughtcrime since they contradict the prevailing Ingsoc orthodoxy.”

—

In the future, how will people be able to judge whether they are enslaved or oppressed if the concepts and historical records of slavery are erased?

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#155

Post by [deleted] »

zaksoup wrote: post #14
tachyonbeam wrote: post #3

If I say "you are the master of your own destiny", is that offensive, because the word "master" is always offensive? I think that "main branch" sounds fine, it makes as much sense as "master branch", but I'm irked that people are always caving to word policing. Like, we're just going to scratch a whole bunch of words from the dictionary because someone somewhere is offended? The other day, people at my workplace were…

I don’t really get this sentiment. Are you so absolutely dedicated to the phrase “falling on deaf ears” that if somebody says to you “hey, that phrase might hurt somebody’s feelings, can you use an alternative” you take it as some sort of massive imposition on your life? I don’t understand why small changes that can be done in kindness are seen as so inconvenient as to be worth this level of rejection. I’m hearing im…

[deleted]

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#156

Post by edejong »

tdy_err wrote: post #149
tachyonbeam wrote: post #3

If I say "you are the master of your own destiny", is that offensive, because the word "master" is always offensive? I think that "main branch" sounds fine, it makes as much sense as "master branch", but I'm irked that people are always caving to word policing. Like, we're just going to scratch a whole bunch of words from the dictionary because someone somewhere is offended? The other day, people at my workplace were…

I thought the same but when I looked it up out of curiosity I was surprised to see the primary (probably most established) definition of master is ~ “one who owns people”.

Oh really, where did you look it up?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#157

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

wadkar wrote: post #52
umvi wrote: post #9

Sigh... sad to see the tech community bullied into compliance over a non-issue by political correctness activists. It's not really that big of a deal (and in some ways "main" is better anyway because it's 2 characters shorter), it's just the principle of the thing that bothers me. I would rather see projects and people stand their ground instead of caving to pressure anytime a twitter mob comes along.

I am happy to see this. You say bullied into compliance but all I see is a community consciously putting efforts to become more inclusive. It may not be that big of a deal for you but it is a big deal for those who don’t share the same worldview as you. Are your principals so low that you wouldn’t accommodate change of language and behavior to be more welcoming of others? What do you think about people who curse like…

What exactly is the difference between a Californian white liberal changing spoken language forcing the whole world care about their petty politics and those nutjob charismatic Christians trying to ban rap videos during the 90's? Sure as hell not very exclusive or nice language, should we go start changing the culture of words too? Looks like you've become a full circle but it takes time to become self aware.

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#158

Post by emptysongglass »

This is ethics grandstanding without putting in any of the work and does more to divide us human beings than it does to heal.

Class politics not identity politics. All of us are workers in the service of the true masters holding the leash to capital emancipation. This is how I know you black brother, this is how I know you Asian sister, my fellow workers. It's the cause worth fighting for, not helpless endless division built on a bedrock I can never be: the color of your skin or the shape of your brow.

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#159

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

aaomidi wrote: post #132
GhostVII wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't lost anything, but we've gained the expectation that we should be accommodating a tiny minority of people being offended for no reason. Sure it's not much work to switch "master" to "main" (although in aggregate it's probably a tonne of person hours), but what happens when the next trend is to be offended at "blacklist", or "sanity check", or any of the other thousands of words that someone is inevitably g…

You're pushing all the "angry minority" stereotype in your language in your comment. Like, if I as a brown person am uncomfortable something it's me being an irrationally offended minority. If it's a white person it's just Mike having a bad day. I'm glad you're not my coworker.

I believe it's called white fragility nowadays bt insane Americans. Also, someone who is from Eastern Europe and white, I'm grossly offended by people using my skin color everywhere, I have nothing to do with your history.

Do you even realize tech community is bigger than California?

Re: Update to Git changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main

#160

Post by touristtam »

da_big_ghey wrote: post #59
mason55 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if instead of master/slave the terms were master and "n-word". Would there be a reasonable argument to change it at that point? If you say "yes" then you agree there is a line somewhere. If that's the case then we should discuss where the line should be and why it should be there instead of saying "stop [worrying] about being politically correct". If you say "no" then your argument is that no words are too of…

Master/slave has a technical meaning beyond the sense of one person enslaving another. "Nigger" has no use case outside of making horrible and offensive remarks, aside from historical writing (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird) or making a point about racism, cases in which it is accepted.

There have been cases in other western language where the word nigger (or its local variation) was used to describe an actual object or an activity. Since then it has often been scrubbed out. Was it the right thing to do? Was it wrong? The point is the word has been used and abused over the years, but the connotation one could infer from its use still exist. Banning the use of the word doesn't address the root of the behaviour, only its symptoms.
Post reply on HN