I feel like I'm in the minority that thinks this is a good idea. I can easily see how some people might be made uncomfortable by the existing wording, but more importantly, I can see no downside to changing it. It will be a very small amount of work for a very small amount of time and then everything will carry on as normal. If this helps make programming more inclusive, even in a small way, then I'm all for it.
Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
21–30 of 104 posts
Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#22I remember talking to CloudBees reps back around 2013 when we were going to purchase Jenkins Enterprise licenses and they made a conscious effort to refer to build slaves as build agents or build nodes. I applauded them at the time for that even though there is still a lot of referencing of "slave" in documentation and blogs. I don't have a problem with "master" but I do have a problem with "slave" and I'd like to er…
Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#23Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#24I feel like I'm in the minority that thinks this is a good idea. I can easily see how some people might be made uncomfortable by the existing wording, but more importantly, I can see no downside to changing it. It will be a very small amount of work for a very small amount of time and then everything will carry on as normal. If this helps make programming more inclusive, even in a small way, then I'm all for it.
Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#25Google is also mass refactoring internally as well, blacklist/whitelist are now blocklist/allowlist and so on. It's quite a bit of churn.
We did that… and then a week later, got informed that “blocklist” is still racist because it “looks similar to blacklist” and now we need to do a second refactoring to change it to “denylist”
Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#26I feel like I'm in the minority that thinks this is a good idea. I can easily see how some people might be made uncomfortable by the existing wording, but more importantly, I can see no downside to changing it. It will be a very small amount of work for a very small amount of time and then everything will carry on as normal. If this helps make programming more inclusive, even in a small way, then I'm all for it.
How does it help black individuals though? Like how does it improve their lives, police brutality & prison reform, poverty, water quality?
Is this the last remaining piece of racism in our society? No.
Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#27I feel like I'm in the minority that thinks this is a good idea. I can easily see how some people might be made uncomfortable by the existing wording, but more importantly, I can see no downside to changing it. It will be a very small amount of work for a very small amount of time and then everything will carry on as normal. If this helps make programming more inclusive, even in a small way, then I'm all for it.
Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#28It's been a long time but I'm pretty sure I remember changing "master/slave" to "primary/secondary" in a bunch of bind docs.
0. (this might be it) https://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/11/26/master.term.re...
Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#29It's a renaming of mostly internal identifiers, a somewhat minor change for those implementing it, and a complete non-issue for anyone else. It doesn't matter if you are offended by the terms or not. Your opinion is somewhat irrelevant for once.
The logic of why people may feel offended by master/slave or white/blacklist is trivially obvious. One can have doubts about the intensity of it, but not the basic mechanism.
Additionally, this issue has grown in salience precisely because people opposed it.
Agitating against such changes is just as emotional as the proponents are accused of being, only the justification is far more transparently dishonest considering the relative ease of this change as outlined above.
People will invariably profess to be willing to help overcome the lingering effects of hundreds of years of slavery and continuing racism. But when they get the chance to do so, with the barest minimum effort, it's not going to happen.
Not because anyone is racist, of course. No, this is about ethics-in-datastructure-identifiers.
Re: Red Hat to remove contentious terms like master and slave from its source code
#30Google is also mass refactoring internally as well, blacklist/whitelist are now blocklist/allowlist and so on. It's quite a bit of churn.
There's really no benefit to meaningless conflations of human social problems with other things.
I agree with the other comment about assuaging white guilt; it doesn't help someone get hired, talk to the police, or find housing. Those are the issues we need to work on.