Why renaming Git’s master branch is a terrible idea

Re:Why renaming Git’s master branch is a terrible idea by TheRealSteel on Friday November 13, 2020 @08:08AM (#25081749)

"Slavery was an institution, and masters simply played a role, they were not inherently good or bad, in fact some masters treated their slaves really well, to the point that many didn’t want to stop being slaves."

I thought that this was going to be a technical article about specific problems that would occur if we changed the branch name, but nope, straight up defence of slavery.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why renaming Git’s master branch is a terrible idea by nvarsj on Friday November 13, 2020 @08:19AM (#25081844)

That was definitely a troublesome paragraph. I’m not sure what point he was trying to make exactly. The rest of the article is much better though. Master recordings for example - is this offensive? It seems almost identical to the usage of master in git - to mean the primary or original version. Or Grandmasters in chess. It gets a bit ridiculous to think master in itself is a bad word, doesn’t it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why renaming Git’s master branch is a terrible idea by felipec on Friday November 13, 2020 @08:14AM (#25081797)

Maybe next time try to actually read the article before criticizing it.

[ Parent | on HN ]