6 ms·

This would save so much time wasting. When someone says "Can you push that to the master branch" there is nothing that ties that statement to slavery or racism

This would save so much time wasting. When someone says "Can you push that to the master branch" there is nothing that ties that statement to slavery or racism so there is nothing wrong with it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zarzavat 5y ago
The best thing to do is to ignore these people, they will never be happy so there's no point trying to please them. If you ignore someone who is never happy then in time they may respect you, but if you always comply then they will never respect you and their perceived power over you simply increases, which means they feel empowered to ask for more and more.
- russelldjimmy 5y ago
  Exactly
- reedjosh 5y ago
  But how will tech Cos show they're woke if they can't just change the names of things and say they did something important? It's literally a bragging point at my new Co.
  - jaimex2 5y ago
    Anyone else intentionally making master branches in new repos at work? It's hilarious watching the amount of mental energy people waste on this.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > ignore these people Unfortunately for the rest of us, they've been put in charge.
  - kleer001 5y ago
    I'd say they took charge, weaponizing empathy and recruiting useful idiots and powerful cowards.
godelski 5y ago
> there is nothing that ties that statement to slavery I would say there is. That's where the language comes from. BUT I do not think that necessarily means that this is a callback or reference to enslaved _people_. Master/slave model accurately describes the model in a way that people can hear the terminology and understand what is happening without knowing details. It doesn't condone/promote slavery, it doesn't have anything to do with enslaving people, and in no way does it even encourage such behavior. Context matters, a lot. And to be honest I didn't hear anyone complaining about this (and I live in an extremely liberal place), so it came off (to me) as a grab for social currency (_especially_ since GitHub didn't use the term "slave". GitHub was using "master" in the sense of "main" or "principle" and so I didn't get even understand). If you try hard enough you can make anything reference race, but at the end of the day what really matters is context and how people perceive things. If no one (or realistically few people, because there are people looking to make issues) are making these connections AND no one is being harmed, then we shouldn't really be worried about it. Edit: wanted to make clearer that I'm talking about two different terms of the usage "master". One from master/slave model[0] and one that GitHub uses (which uses the adjective version of the word which means "main" or "principle"). And that the GitHub version does not reference the former version. I know we're talking contentious subjects here but I'm trying my best to convey what is in my head. I'm open to new opinions but bear with me. Language is complicated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Master/slave model has nothing to do with git's master which is "master copy" like as in record mastering. What you say is valid for SCSI or whate et though.
  - godelski 5y ago
    Sorry I was trying to convey that. But language is often messy. I completely agree with you. I thought my parenthetical mention of Github clarified this but I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not sure how to edit to resolve. Any suggestions?
  - 5y ago

This would save so much time wasting. When someone says "Can you push that to the master branch" there is nothing that ties that statement to slavery or racism so there is nothing wrong with it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zarzavat 5y ago

The best thing to do is to ignore these people, they will never be happy so there's no point trying to please them. If you ignore someone who is never happy then in time they may respect you, but if you always comply then they will never respect you and their perceived power over you simply increases, which means they feel empowered to ask for more and more.

russelldjimmy 5y ago
Exactly
reedjosh 5y ago
But how will tech Cos show they're woke if they can't just change the names of things and say they did something important? It's literally a bragging point at my new Co.
- jaimex2 5y ago
  Anyone else intentionally making master branches in new repos at work? It's hilarious watching the amount of mental energy people waste on this.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> ignore these people Unfortunately for the rest of us, they've been put in charge.
- kleer001 5y ago
  I'd say they took charge, weaponizing empathy and recruiting useful idiots and powerful cowards.

godelski 5y ago

> there is nothing that ties that statement to slavery I would say there is. That's where the language comes from. BUT I do not think that necessarily means that this is a callback or reference to enslaved _people_. Master/slave model accurately describes the model in a way that people can hear the terminology and understand what is happening without knowing details. It doesn't condone/promote slavery, it doesn't have anything to do with enslaving people, and in no way does it even encourage such behavior. Context matters, a lot. And to be honest I didn't hear anyone complaining about this (and I live in an extremely liberal place), so it came off (to me) as a grab for social currency (_especially_ since GitHub didn't use the term "slave". GitHub was using "master" in the sense of "main" or "principle" and so I didn't get even understand). If you try hard enough you can make anything reference race, but at the end of the day what really matters is context and how people perceive things. If no one (or realistically few people, because there are people looking to make issues) are making these connections AND no one is being harmed, then we shouldn't really be worried about it. Edit: wanted to make clearer that I'm talking about two different terms of the usage "master". One from master/slave model[0] and one that GitHub uses (which uses the adjective version of the word which means "main" or "principle"). And that the GitHub version does not reference the former version. I know we're talking contentious subjects here but I'm trying my best to convey what is in my head. I'm open to new opinions but bear with me. Language is complicated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)

guerrilla 5y ago
Master/slave model has nothing to do with git's master which is "master copy" like as in record mastering. What you say is valid for SCSI or whate et though.
- godelski 5y ago
  Sorry I was trying to convey that. But language is often messy. I completely agree with you. I thought my parenthetical mention of Github clarified this but I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not sure how to edit to resolve. Any suggestions?
- 5y ago