This seems just as ridiculous and frustrating as a few years ago, dropping whatever they're doing to remove "master" and "whitelisting" from the code. Different team, same silliness.
2. The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main"
Sorry but that's bullshit. This is just deleting a few words from static content. The whole `main` thing required:
* Github (and Gitlab etc.) to make `master` configurable - an entirely new feature.
* All tooling that previously could assume a default of `master` now can't have a sensible default. You have to specify every time.
* Users to remember which one to use for every repo.
This is still causing me pain. Repos I use are about 50:50 split between `main` and `master`. I sure do love having to retype `git switch master` half the time I do it.
This is dumb, but it definitely is less effort than the dumb `main` change.
... and the git changes were allowed to happen on a sane schedule.
Oh, and most of the people or projects affected by the git change got a choice.
He barely survived and today, I think 10 years later, he still suffers from severe migraines and doesn't have movement in half his body.
And I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me. I sometimes also don't believe this happened, that that was just a bad dream. That we actually need laws to prevent people from killing each other just because.
#!/bin/bash
git remote show origin | sed -n '/^ *HEAD branch: */s///p'
git switch $(git master)
(This is of course irrelevant to the topic of the top-level post.)
The former may annoy some folks until they standardize or figure out a way to tag the repos. The latter is actively aiming to be detrimental to people in a large way, and unless stopped, will very likely succeed in that goal.
Sure, I know the etymology doesn't go to what it sounds like, but even without any culture war stuff — and this is very mild, I view "not using 'master'" in this context as "being polite" — even without culture war stuff, what you're whinging about was already something people had to handle.
You already had the problem you're whinging about, even without any culture war.
And I really do mean it when I say you are 'whinging' here: of all the things people in software have to deal with, what something is called is among the more trivial.
A policy that strips people of money, even with good reason, is much more disruptive than "what's this called?", that you call this "bullshit" and *this* is your comparison? It's like a posh person in WW1 saying that their caviar being rationed is more important than the troops getting winter jackets.
Usually you're switching from a feature branch back to main or master anyway.
The buck didn't stop with that useless piece of wokeism that, oh so curiously, didn't go after master degrees.
The funniest thing when red is in power instead of blue is how all the blue people pretend their crap was good and the crap of red is bad and how it's not about the action but about who does it.
They are both probably forms of overcorrection, this too far in the wrong direction where the former could have been too far in the more ideal direction.
Pandering is not as bad as discrimination, as you’ve pointed out.
This comments section seem to be full of the "Fuck Woke DEI" Maganazis and mentioning "systemic racism" will trigger them, but if you're still reading, look at George Floyd, in an alternate world, he'd be a wealthy person descendant of landowners, but in this reality, his grandparents' land was stolen, he grew up poor (and black) and ended up being yet another black-murdered-by-cop figure: https://dwkcommentaries.com/2020/10/08/a-moving-biography-of... . But snowflakes get triggered if there's an idea of better treatment for descendants of victims of systemic racism (another snowflake trigger word).
To the snowflakes: Hey, why care about all that, your continued violence has won you the ethno-supremacy fascism you wanted, where being white and incompetent doesn't matter, because you'll get that cushy job anyway!
You are part of the problem. Yes. You.
An example might be jobs postings, in computer science the tone used for the post might discourage more women to apply than man. Having a process to ensure this doesn't happen results in more women applying, but more men as well, the increase is just less than woman in %
I also not see an issue with changing a word that has a bleak history with one that hasn't, it doesn't remove anything from people
I will be very blunt. You are simply wrong. Not just inaccurate, but wrong. Not technically wrong, but wrong. If it removes word, it removes something. And since "something" is far, far removed from 'not anything'. You are factually wrong. As in, you cannot get more wrong than you just did. Fucking QED.
In this case, the engineers are changing the functionality of the product, not just changing code identifiers.
You can't ignore the policy aims when determining what is "productive" as productivity is directly to the end result. It's WORSE that this is productive vs non-productive.
You're "Tired of nazi comparisons" when... Musk did two Nazi Salutes! He brought the comparison on by doing a Nazi salute! Twice! You're the one who refuses to see a salute for what it is.
2) False equivalency.
Uhm, yes. Yes they were.
Here's one example:
https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/09/renaming-whi...
> This seems just as ridiculous and frustrating as a few years ago, dropping whatever they're doing to remove "master" and "whitelisting" from the code. Different team, same silliness.
I could go pull my company's JIRA ticket and I guarantee you it hasn't been touched since 2020.
These companies were only going to do enough work for a PR win and nothing more.
I was just pointing out that the companies that changed terminology due to “wokeness” only did it for a PR. It was never an actual endorsement of progressive politics or whatever these dorks try to sell it as.
It really isn't a both sides situation.