Diseased Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

[Kosher Dill]

but I still think it makes more sense to call it 'main', politics aside.

I think it makes more sense to name each master branch a randomly-selected word from the dictionary (gamer words excluded), to hammer home what an anarchic mess Git branching strategies are.

 

[OwO What's This?]

its just a generic term that says "im in charge"
could have instead been called the boss branch, the chief branch, the main branch, the primary branch, no problem. nobody cares about the specific terminology here, what people care about is organisations cucking to internet lynch mobs

I don't think a lynch mob went after github specifically to make it happen (though I know that there's been a lot of people wanting it to happen across tech in general), I think a lead github dev elected it to do it himself... and considering I think 'main' makes more sense in this context, I don't have a problem with it

 

[GethN7]

I don't think a lynch mob went after github specifically to make it happen (though I know that there's been a lot of people wanting it to happen across tech in general), I think a lead github dev elected it to do it himself

And let's be honest, it could just be a preemptive virtue signal since it's obvious which way the wind is blowing on social media and none of these types want the hassle.

Having a bunch assholes you know will leap on you and tear you apart for whatever excuse they can find sucks these days, this was a likely attempt to avoid it, and as virtue signals go, it's stupid but whatever, I've seen much worse.

 

[D.Va]

I don't think a lynch mob went after github specifically to make it happen (though I know that there's been a lot of people wanting it to happen across tech in general), I think a lead github dev elected it to do it himself... and considering I think 'main' makes more sense in this context, I don't have a problem with it

Well yeah, that's what is happening all over and it started with the blacksquareposting. Some organisations have been a bit more proactive (Netflix, Github, ReactJS, etc) and that's probably a trend that is going to continue if companies fear they might get the ire of the Twitter Eye of Sauron for doing an accidental racism.

You can call your main branch whatever you want, sure. But it's going to be an annoyance and I get the feeling we'll see a post from Linus Torvalds soon where he will complain about needlessly changing things, since git init is now going to give you a completely different default branch name compared to GitHub's, and I bet he's going to resist a change like this happening to his baby if GitHub tries to sway every other tracker and then git itself to use a different branch name for literally no reason.

 

[OwO What's This?]

Well yeah, that's what is happening all over and it started with the blacksquareposting. Some organisations have been a bit more proactive (Netflix, Github, ReactJS, etc) and that's probably a trend that is going to continue if companies fear they might get the ire of the Twitter Eye of Sauron for doing an accidental racism.

You can call your main branch whatever you want, sure. But it's going to be an annoyance and I get the feeling we'll see a post from Linus Torvalds soon where he will complain about needlessly changing things, since git init is now going to give you a completely different default branch name compared to GitHub's, and I bet he's going to resist a change like this happening to his baby if GitHub tries to sway every other tracker and then git itself to use a different branch name for literally no reason.

To be fair, you could always rename the branch title to something other than 'master' on GitHub, and the change is not retroactive. It will only affect the default branch title of new repos.

 

[GethN7]

Well yeah, that's what is happening all over and it started with the blacksquareposting. Some organisations have been a bit more proactive (Netflix, Github, ReactJS, etc) and that's probably a trend that is going to continue if companies fear they might get the ire of the Twitter Eye of Sauron for doing an accidental racism.

You can call your main branch whatever you want, sure. But it's going to be an annoyance and I get the feeling we'll see a post from Linus Torvalds soon where he will complain about needlessly changing things, since git init is now going to give you a completely different default branch name compared to GitHub's, and I bet he's going to resist a change like this happening to his baby if GitHub tries to sway every other tracker and then git itself to use a different branch name for literally no reason.

If GitHub is remotely smart, the name change is just cosmetic (like switching out how the word for the master branch is displayed on their client and site), but it's still the same in CLI mode.

 

[Shaka Brah]

If GitHub is remotely smart, the name change is just cosmetic (like switching out how the word for the master branch is displayed on their client and site), but it's still the same in CLI mode.

If these kinds of people (SJWs) are the ones implementing the change, it will be thorough and devastating. None of the people who believe this stuff know about coding. If they were any good they'd be too busy coding to worry about this garbage.

 

[D.Va]

To be fair, you could always rename the branch title to something other than 'master' on GitHub, and the change is not retroactive. It will only affect the default branch title of new repos.

I figured it wouldn't be retroactive because that would break virtually every auto git pull mechanism on the internet if they did something so retarded.

As long as they allow people to set the default branch name back to the evil racist one for every new project so I don't have to set it manually, that's fine. I don't want to trip up on missing branch errors whenever I create something new.

 

[Least Concern]

As someone who uses GitHub on the daily in my course of work, I'm still confused as to what exactly they will be changing here. When you create a new repository on GitHub, you're pretty much just creating an empty space into which you push changes you made after you created the repository on your local system - and that repository will have a "master" branch unless you've gone out of your way to rename it first. GitHub has nothing to do with that side of the process. (GitHub does not own or control Git itself; it just uses it as a core component of its business.)

It's like buying a stack of copy paper which you then copy your documents onto - the company that created the copy paper can offer suggestions on how to write your original document, but in reality they have nothing to do with it and just provide a product on which to host your already-created project. Or maybe like a contractor that built you a garage telling you how you should park your car into it.

I think the only thing they can do is to rewrite their documentation to not assume the user's main branch is named "master" and to not have any of their software assume a branch it encounters which is named "master" is the main branch unless it is explicitly told to. Both of which sound kind of annoying, frankly, but won't change how most people use GitHub day-to-day.

 

[AlexJonesGotMePregnant]

As someone who uses GitHub on the daily in my course of work, I'm still confused as to what exactly they will be changing here. When you create a new repository on GitHub, you're pretty much just creating an empty space into which you push changes you made after you created the repository on your local system - and that repository will have a "master" branch unless you've gone out of your way to rename it first. GitHub has nothing to do with that side of the process. (GitHub does not own or control Git itself; it just uses it as a core component of its business.)

It's like buying a stack of copy paper which you then copy your documents onto - the company that created the copy paper can offer suggestions on how to write your original document, but in reality they have nothing to do with it and just provide a product on which to host your already-created project. Or maybe like a contractor that built you a garage telling you how you should park your car into it.

I think the only thing they can do is to rewrite their documentation to not assume the user's main branch is named "master" and to not have any of their software assume a branch it encounters which is named "master" is the main branch unless it is explicitly told to. Both of which sound kind of annoying, frankly, but won't change how most people use GitHub day-to-day.

you're not wrong but you can init a repo directly through github and then clone it locally. that's probably where they'd adjust the default branch.

 

[nosemouth]

Eh, I can't get that fed up about getting rid of "master/slave" anymore. If it makes people happy, call it "parent/child" or "active/passive" or whatever. It's fine. I can meet the wokerati halfway on this.

There seem to be a lot of people who think that a project dropping the word "slave" from its documentation is worth getting mad on the internet about, I guess I've got too many more important things to be stressed about nowadays.

Just don't write a wank-filled post about how doing a s/slave/dependents/g on the code base of a FOSS project few normies will ever hear of is having this monumental impact on society.

Thanks for your worthless contribution.

 

[Fagnacious D]

Stop bending the knee to them. It will not sate their hunger for power. They'll want more and more and more until they control everything and only their friends are let in to positions of power.
don't give them any consessions. Simply tell them if they are offended they can go elsewhere.

 

[teriyakiburns]

If GitHub is remotely smart

They aren't. Ever since their CEO was forced out forced out for "harassing" a female engineer, despite there being no proof that any harassment took place, they've been on a slow spiral into absurd social justice pandering. The first obvious sign of it was when the same engineer spearheaded a campaign to remove the "meritocracy rug" Github had in their headquarters lobby. Apparently meritocracy is anti-feminist. It's been steadily ramping up since then.

I try and avoid github for projects now. Impossible to completely get away, but as much as possible is currently hosted on other git repos.

 

[awoo]

Yeah as long as git init still defaults to master then the change has no impact on my work

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

(((Nat Friedman)))
(((Una Kravets)))

The "Culture of Critique" does shit like this at an instinctive level.

Spoiler: I AM THEREFORE I MUST SUBVERT

View attachment 1372910

Exactly.

This subhuman vapid Zionist cunt Una A Kravets (1992-07-22) is a 'Material Design' 'Developer Advocate' at Google.

Which is to say, it has no business interfering in development (or in working user interfaces).

It looks like this. At age 28.

It lives at 5Q 189 Schermerhorn Street, Brooklyn, NY (11201).

Building has a doorman, this is the layout of the apartment in question.

And an image looking outwards if anyone wants to correlate the external position.

 

[clownworld]

there's already the tree terminology (trunk/branch), master was just a default branch title

I don't like why they're changing it, but I still think it makes more sense to call it 'main', politics aside.

trunk branch terminology came from svn which famously let your branch but not merge (practically). Gits primary design goals was allowing you to actually merge Your branches. Trees don’t merge (typically) so the change was warranted.

Master is a common euphemism for primary or main with a heavier connotation of authoritative in the context of ‘copies’.

The change is gay and you are missing the ‘point’ if you think the replacement ‘is just as good’.

Yeah as long as git init still defaults to master then the change has no impact on my work

GitHub’s move will be used to pressure git upstream. See Linux CoC for how this plays out

 

[OwO What's This?]

trunk branch terminology came from svn which famously let your branch but not merge (practically). Gits primary design goals was allowing you to actually merge Your branches. Trees don’t merge (typically) so the change was warranted.

Master is a common euphemism for primary or main with a heavier connotation of authoritative in the context of ‘copies’.

The change is gay and you are missing the ‘point’ if you think the replacement ‘is just as good’.

hmm ok fair enough

 

[RetroCrab]

I am so glad I didn't take a career in software development. As if working with a bunch of troons and furry degenerates on the spectrum wouldn't be bad enough, imagine having to virtue signal and update my codebase to remove whatever words the SJWs think will solve racial inequality each week.

Wish I could say I didn't see this coming when they started in on master/slave. You give these people an inch and it just never stops. Do you think it would be a problem if historically whitelist was for blocking and blacklist was for allowing? Or that we'll ever hear motherboard/daughterboard is sexist against men?

 

[Least Concern]

I am so glad I didn't take a career in software development. As if working with a bunch of troons and furry degenerates on the spectrum wouldn't be bad enough, imagine having to virtue signal and update my codebase to remove whatever words the SJWs think will solve racial inequality each week.

Wish I could say I didn't see this coming when they started in on master/slave. You give these people an inch and it just never stops. Do you think it would be a problem if historically whitelist was for blocking and blacklist was for allowing? Or that we'll ever hear motherboard/daughterboard is sexist against men?

Eh. The worst of the worst is getting echo-chambered here. I've never once had a client who cared what I named my branches or what I think about racial issues in modern-day America.

Just stay out of a 100-mile radius from Mountain View and you can do fine.

 

[awoo]

Yes. From what I've seen many big companies will pay lip service but not require any major changes and small companies don't care at all. Don't let a few companies' echo chambers discourage an entire career path.