As so often is the case, people are conflating mentions of the crimes with the crimes themselves. Bickering about terminology takes away from getting at the actual offences.
GitHub, fuck your name change
261–270 of 1001 posts
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#262Agreed, fuck this virtue signaling. If somebody chooses to be offended, then so be it; they can go be offended somewhere else.
I don't follow social trends anyway, so it's pretty easy to ignore these things.
If people just followed the doctrine of "Be awesome to one another" more often, the world would be different. Unfortunately, people aren't born nice.
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#263Here's github leadership
https://github.com/about/leadership
thats all you need to know about how deeply they care
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#264That's exactly what I think about that topic. Master branch is the master record. Nothing more or less.
Especially since there is no such thing as a slave branch.
Yes and no. Git took the terminology from BitKeeper, which did have master and slave repositories. So while there are no slave anythings in git, git uses the term because of the master-slave meaning.
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#265...and nobody in the valley seems to be aware of the etymology for "slave" :)
Because it doesn't matter. Slavery isn't an just an old concept.
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#266sympathetic, but also, feel that:
> I don’t want this post to be about The Solutions™...
is lazy.
yep, thats right, doing something meaningful is hard, and figuring out what to do is too.
...but like, raging for 3 pages and giving 3 lines to consider what solutions might look like is just a rant.
I get it, maybe if more people were focused on finding solutions, we’d get better solutions... but come on, lead by example.
“Im angry” doesn’t fix things.
“what youre doing doesnt help” doesnt fix things.
Someone has to actually do the hard work of coming up with solutions that are compatible with the HR and budget demands of large companies, otherwise, you get lame ass outcomes like this from the people who (perhaps misguidedly) tried.
Companies will go for minimal effort, minimal cost, minimal disruption unless you give them a compelling alternative narrative; its just daydreaming to expect anything else.
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#267Microsoft did the same with Edge. They forked Chrome but they did a big search/replace of certain configuration keys... Everything called Whitelist is now called Allowlist.
This tripped me up in work, as the configuration variables I pushed for Kerberos authentication no longer worked. AuthNegotiateDelegateWhitelist became AuthNegotiateDelegateAllowlist and AuthServerWhitelist became AuthServerAllowlist. Sure, I understand why this is better. What I have a problem with is the way this is done. It wasn't very well documented or announced, they just did a big search replace, on internal configuration variables that no end user will ever see.
I don't even mind the work, but at least make it known. This was not handled very well and had all the hallmarks of an emergency PR-fueled scramble. It feels more like window dressing than an actual desire to change things.
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#268I know the topic is explosive, but I see a pattern here that is being repeated over and over again: people thinking they know for better what is good for some minority, and then making a big fuss about it. At no point does anyone think to ask people in the said minority if they think this is actually a good idea and what they want. Another similar(?) example. In my country, there is a growing immigrant Muslim minorit…
> At no point does anyone think to ask people in the said minority if they think this is actually a good idea and what they want.
This literally happened.
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#269idk what's going on, it's lack of war or something
that makes SF computer people want to "save the world"
or some shit with those ridiculous things like this main branch?
Re: GitHub, fuck your name change
#270There is a difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".
I am (mildly) happy with the name change, but as the author of the piece makes clear, it it not enough in itself, not even close.
Maybe you view it as a distraction from real change? However, I'm sure that many of the people publicly dunking on this change have even less interest in more substantial change.
GitHub has issues hiring and retaining minorities ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480024 ) perhaps they should look at those next.