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

GitHub, fuck your name change

mooseyanon.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: GitHub, fuck your name change

#231

Post by otikik »

thecopy wrote: post #30
sunaurus wrote: post #4

I feel like this topic has been discussed a lot already, but I think it's important to keep pushing back against useless wasted man-hours like this effort is. I live in a country that was almost entirely enslaved by foreigners for ~700 years. I've discussed this rename with dozens of engineers in my country. Without exception, every single one of them thinks it's completely ridiculous. We need to keep voicing these t…

>We need to keep voicing these thoughts so that decision-makers in large companies have a chance to hear us and realize that they should focus on more useful issues instead. I suppose they are not doing it for your feeling's sake. They are doing it to avoid being a target of a woke mob feigning offense for their own ideological gain in the on-going identity culture war which is happening in the west.

> mob feigning offense for their own ideological gain

Yes, it is definitely the "woke" who do this, and you are absolutely not projecting.

Re: GitHub, fuck your name change

#234

Post by Jenk »

enriquto wrote: post #77

I'm a bit late to the game, but I don't understand what this fuss is all about, from a technical point of view. I just created a git repo this morning and the default branch was named "master" (using the git command line). Then I pushed it to github to make it visible, as I have done several times before. The command line instructions at the "new repository" interface on github suggest changing the branch name to mai…

A lot of places will have extra effort in their CI/CD pipelines, too. I know, I know, commands like the following exist:

    grep -rl master | sed -ie "s/master/main/g"
but there's always going to be bugs or whatever come out of it, and also.. this misses the point of the article. It's a hollow virtue signal. It does literally nothing to help the cause it proclaims to help, yet it requires some effort from well.. everyone. It is the definitive example of a waste of time, al be it not much per instance, but some time is wasted.

Re: GitHub, fuck your name change

#235

Post by ThePhysicist »

yoavm wrote: post #185
ThePhysicist wrote: post #170

Does master not also designate a person that has achieved mastery in a given craft or art, like a "Kung Fu master"? Within git I think the term is used in the meaning of a "master copy" in the sense of a reference. I also think this change is pointless, and it will break so so many things.

It does not origin from "master copy" or "Kung Fu master". https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/474419/does-the-...

Thanks, that's a comprehensive answer.

Re: GitHub, fuck your name change

#236

Post by akvadrako »

tsbinz wrote: post #34
sunaurus wrote: post #4

I feel like this topic has been discussed a lot already, but I think it's important to keep pushing back against useless wasted man-hours like this effort is. I live in a country that was almost entirely enslaved by foreigners for ~700 years. I've discussed this rename with dozens of engineers in my country. Without exception, every single one of them thinks it's completely ridiculous. We need to keep voicing these t…

So you say spending time on this topic is wasted time, and your solution is to spend more time on pushing back?

This is how the world works. If you don't fight back sometimes these things will continue to happen.

Of course there is a balance – too much fighting back and the cure becomes worse than the initial problem.

Re: GitHub, fuck your name change

#237

Post by xroche »

> “Meritocracy!”, I hear you cry. “They pick from the most talented students. The ones that worked the hardest to get into the most elite schools. The black students should have just worked harder”

Crazy idea: if companies that do virtue signaling on inclusivity were paying their taxes, decent schools could be funded and we would not have so many of those issues.

But instead, those companies are actively lobbying to avoid any taxes, and as a result, poor kids will never have any chance of getting a decent education:

* The IRS Decided to Get Tough Against Microsoft. Microsoft Got Tougher. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-irs-decided-to-get-to...

* Facebook, Google and Microsoft 'avoiding $3bn in tax in poorer nations' https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54691572

I am baffled by the naivety of people in our IT industry who swallow the hypocrite "inclusivity" discourse of those big tech giants. They don't care about inclusivity, they only care about money folks.

Re: GitHub, fuck your name change

#238

Post by StavrosK »

cies wrote: post #99
sunaurus wrote: post #4

I feel like this topic has been discussed a lot already, but I think it's important to keep pushing back against useless wasted man-hours like this effort is. I live in a country that was almost entirely enslaved by foreigners for ~700 years. I've discussed this rename with dozens of engineers in my country. Without exception, every single one of them thinks it's completely ridiculous. We need to keep voicing these t…

I agree that master->main is pretty pointless. But what about getting rid of "slave", "blacklist" and "whitelist". The last two kind of opened my eyes to connotation of black and white, that may be problematic to some. Also I find "allow/denylist" more descriptive, maybe that helps.

I'm generally not in favor of these changes. Blacklist/whitelist I can kind of see, but then again, why make it about skin color? It's natural that we'd have a connotation of bright things being good and dark things being bad (as in, our surroundings), because we like being able to see.

Any resemblance to words used to describe skin color is coincidental, I think.

Re: GitHub, fuck your name change

#239

Post by enriquto »

Jenk wrote: post #234
enriquto wrote: post #77

I'm a bit late to the game, but I don't understand what this fuss is all about, from a technical point of view. I just created a git repo this morning and the default branch was named "master" (using the git command line). Then I pushed it to github to make it visible, as I have done several times before. The command line instructions at the "new repository" interface on github suggest changing the branch name to mai…

A lot of places will have extra effort in their CI/CD pipelines, too. I know, I know, commands like the following exist: grep -rl master | sed -ie "s/master/main/g" but there's always going to be bugs or whatever come out of it, and also.. this misses the point of the article. It's a hollow virtue signal. It does literally nothing to help the cause it proclaims to help, yet it requires some effort from well.. everyon…

My point is that you do not need to follow github's suggestion and rename your branch to "main". It seems to me that github's "change" is only a suggestion in their instructions to create a new repository. They do not rename your branches nor force a name to you. You get to chose the name of your branches, and the default name for the git program is still "master".

Re: GitHub, fuck your name change

#240

Post by Karsteski »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #104

This topic has been done to death. If you're offended by the name change from master to main then you really need to be asking yourself why you're so upset about it. And you need to be answering that question honestly.

It's because I detest virtue signalling. I especially detest companies virtue signalling solely for the sake of appeasing the woke mob, a minority of people, in a transparent attempt to show how "anti-racist" they are.
Post reply on HN