On 7/9/21 10:44 PM, Craig Russell wrote:
Before this gets out of hand, I have to object to flagging "master" as a git branch name
without any other context like "slave".
Pragmatically speaking, you have a choice here. It seems pretty clear to
me, having been at the center of this discussion for almost a year now,
that the industry *is* going to settle on removing this usage of the
word master. So you (we) can choose to flag it now, or we can wait a few
years and be out of step with the rest of the conversation.
Kind of like how we resisted having a code of conduct for so many years,
and then just did it because it was embarrassing not to.
Or we can choose to be leaders.
Yes, there's an argument to be made that "master" is fine in context Z
but is a problem in context Q. I have been part of this conversation
dozens of times, at least. But ... why? This specific case is easier to
remediate than almost any of the other ones - you change a branch name,
and you spend an hour updating your tooling. It is by far the easiest
win in this entire effort. Unlike, say, altering function names that are
based on libraries that are based on IETF standards.
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com
@rbowen
