32 ms·

Nice clickbait. I actually expected to see a description of an unexpected bug or exploit that crept in due to the default branch name change. Instead, I'm not e

Nice clickbait. I actually expected to see a description of an unexpected bug or exploit that crept in due to the default branch name change. Instead, I'm not even sure what this is trying to say. "There was a change and I went along with it and now I don't like it any more because something something slippery slope"? Personally, I thought the change was a bad idea because it seemed to be based on a mixture of parochial USA politics and a fear of twitter mobs, rather than any real evidence of a high benefit to disruption ratio, but what's done is done, we can't change the way the world works. Is there more context that is missing from this 173 word gripe?

stanislavb 2y ago
I think what he is trying to say is that people "lost" a reasonable amount of time in arguing about and implementing a change (i.e. updating scripts, processes, configurations), that didn't have any viable impact or result in the end.
theGeatZhopa 2y ago
I understand this as "There was someone who forcefully wanted a change and I went along with it. But then the next word battle started. After this, next .. And now I learned from the situation, because no one will foole me twice" I think there has been some experience with this kinds. I can also say, with my former employer, the new PR suddenly brought up this issue. Since then we needed to proofread everything and change our ways of thinking. I'm not against, let me say, woke-ness. Each argument starts with words and can end up in a war - so does discrimination, too. But you can't rape a language and force everything to be gendered. And that's the problem; Force. So maybe this happened alike and is the missing context? May be there has been a war in the project between the wokers and the sleepers? Also, may be because of this, someone had been mobbed out, or, made shut up with force? ... Such discussions are healthy for both side :)
- enasterosophes 2y ago
  I see, that does help me see more where he might be coming from, so now I have some regret for the contentious tone of my original post :D

stanislavb 2y ago

I think what he is trying to say is that people "lost" a reasonable amount of time in arguing about and implementing a change (i.e. updating scripts, processes, configurations), that didn't have any viable impact or result in the end.

theGeatZhopa 2y ago

I understand this as "There was someone who forcefully wanted a change and I went along with it. But then the next word battle started. After this, next .. And now I learned from the situation, because no one will foole me twice" I think there has been some experience with this kinds. I can also say, with my former employer, the new PR suddenly brought up this issue. Since then we needed to proofread everything and change our ways of thinking. I'm not against, let me say, woke-ness. Each argument starts with words and can end up in a war - so does discrimination, too. But you can't rape a language and force everything to be gendered. And that's the problem; Force. So maybe this happened alike and is the missing context? May be there has been a war in the project between the wokers and the sleepers? Also, may be because of this, someone had been mobbed out, or, made shut up with force? ... Such discussions are healthy for both side :)

enasterosophes 2y ago
I see, that does help me see more where he might be coming from, so now I have some regret for the contentious tone of my original post :D