5 ms·

>Unfortunately a few years later I can say the opposite. It's your contention that people getting up in arms about not changing the name of the 'master' branch

>Unfortunately a few years later I can say the opposite. It's your contention that people getting up in arms about not changing the name of the 'master' branch specifically look good now, with hindsight? Can't say I agree.

Izkata 2y ago
That the people implying they were monsters were the actual monsters.
- consteval 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    It broke scripts and docs. Funny enough I never liked that name early on, in preference to to hg’s default. But once done for years, no point in changing it.
  - eadmund 2y ago
    > For some people changing master -> main isn't a nothing burger, it's actively harmful. I constantly have pain — years after the Summer of Floyd — from repos I follow which change the name of their master branch from ‘master’ to ‘main,’ which breaks all sorts of tooling, sometimes silently (my local copies stay on ‘master,’ and never get updates), sometimes noisily. That switching is actively harmful. > Some people genuinely love the name master and want it to stay and yes, that is weird. I don’t particularly love it, but it is the correct name for the master version (as opposed to a local copy, or a remote copy, or a feature branch, or a custom branch, or whatever) of a repo.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Okay but if it's not your project then, to you, it should be a nothing burger. > but it is the correct name for the master version Why? Literally why? Main means the exact same thing, it's equally correct. Why choose THIS hill to die on? This is what I'm talking about.
      - animuchan 2y ago
        How is introducing a breaking change "a nothingburger", but resisting a breaking change "a hill to die on"? It's a breaking change, requiring me to fix CI, local copies, scripts and so on. It really doesn't matter if you rename "master" to "main", or "main" to "GloriousLeaderXiJinping". Just don't, it's harmful because it's a breaking change for no reason.
        consteval 2y ago
        The change already happened, you're not resisting anything anymore. You're just being annoying. > Just don't, it's harmful because it's a breaking change for no reason. If only it were this simple. Many people got pissed off when Github changed their default. For NEW repos. Clearly, many people have more emotional skin in the game than you're willing to admit.
  - zahlman 2y ago
    > I don't think a single soul implied they were monsters. There's nothing wrong with having your branch named "master" if, coincidently, that's what you have. It takes no effort to find arguments such as https://medium.com/let-s-begin/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-or-something-else-d55a04f456c0 https://medium.com/let-s-begin/how-to-rename-your-master-bra... . Github themselves tried to push the change on people, and reporting on the issue used phrasing describing the original choice as "no longer appropriate" as if this were some authoritative consensus (e.g. https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its... ). Github's change was disruptive because repositories created on GitHub wouldn't work properly locally in Git (depending on various details) and this was happening to users with very little technical understanding and no reason to care about the underlying political issue. But aside from that, it's very obvious that many people think there's "something wrong with" using master as the default name. If they didn't, there never would have been an issue in the first place because nobody would have proposed to change it. There is nobody out there advocating for the change without bringing up some strange hand-waving argument about colonialism. Not a single one of these people can demonstrate how using the name "master" actually causes harm - because it doesn't. But hordes of them are willing to argue for making the change anyway. > However it's weird if you say master is the "one true name" and it HAS to be master. Nobody says this. They say that they don't want others pushing (or literally pull-requesting, in many cases) changes on them for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with the business of their project. > Like, why do you care? That's odd. That's what some people point out. No, there's nothing strange about it at all. What is "odd" is the rhetorical strategy of trying to shame people for a benign choice, gaslight that they're the ones being insistent and ideological, and then gaslight that no such shaming is occurring. > For some people changing master -> main isn't a nothing burger, it's actively harmful. No, what's "actively harmful" is the idea that people should be compelled to change things because outsiders don't like them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism). Also the compatibility break mentioned above.
    - consteval 2y ago
      [flagged]
mixmastamyk 2y ago
You’ve reframed the disagreement about unnecessary work as “up in arms.” They look like sane folks who recommended not doing purely symbolic work. Something substantial perhaps, say promoting under-represented folks within psf would be something. You can’t eat branch names.
- zahlman 2y ago
  For what it's worth, David Mertz would agree with you (https://discuss.python.org/t/why-im-leaving-discuss-python-org/58093/4 https://discuss.python.org/t/why-im-leaving-discuss-python-o...). He got kicked out, too.
animuchan 2y ago
We can mostly agree that the people acting on the irresistible urge to rename git branches specifically look bad now. Turns out it's a slippery slope, who would've thunk.

Izkata 2y ago

That the people implying they were monsters were the actual monsters.

consteval 2y ago
[flagged]
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  It broke scripts and docs. Funny enough I never liked that name early on, in preference to to hg’s default. But once done for years, no point in changing it.
- eadmund 2y ago
  > For some people changing master -> main isn't a nothing burger, it's actively harmful. I constantly have pain — years after the Summer of Floyd — from repos I follow which change the name of their master branch from ‘master’ to ‘main,’ which breaks all sorts of tooling, sometimes silently (my local copies stay on ‘master,’ and never get updates), sometimes noisily. That switching is actively harmful. > Some people genuinely love the name master and want it to stay and yes, that is weird. I don’t particularly love it, but it is the correct name for the master version (as opposed to a local copy, or a remote copy, or a feature branch, or a custom branch, or whatever) of a repo.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Okay but if it's not your project then, to you, it should be a nothing burger. > but it is the correct name for the master version Why? Literally why? Main means the exact same thing, it's equally correct. Why choose THIS hill to die on? This is what I'm talking about.
    - animuchan 2y ago
      How is introducing a breaking change "a nothingburger", but resisting a breaking change "a hill to die on"? It's a breaking change, requiring me to fix CI, local copies, scripts and so on. It really doesn't matter if you rename "master" to "main", or "main" to "GloriousLeaderXiJinping". Just don't, it's harmful because it's a breaking change for no reason.
      - consteval 2y ago
        The change already happened, you're not resisting anything anymore. You're just being annoying. > Just don't, it's harmful because it's a breaking change for no reason. If only it were this simple. Many people got pissed off when Github changed their default. For NEW repos. Clearly, many people have more emotional skin in the game than you're willing to admit.
- zahlman 2y ago
  > I don't think a single soul implied they were monsters. There's nothing wrong with having your branch named "master" if, coincidently, that's what you have. It takes no effort to find arguments such as https://medium.com/let-s-begin/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-or-something-else-d55a04f456c0 https://medium.com/let-s-begin/how-to-rename-your-master-bra... . Github themselves tried to push the change on people, and reporting on the issue used phrasing describing the original choice as "no longer appropriate" as if this were some authoritative consensus (e.g. https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its-master-branch-to-main https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its... ). Github's change was disruptive because repositories created on GitHub wouldn't work properly locally in Git (depending on various details) and this was happening to users with very little technical understanding and no reason to care about the underlying political issue. But aside from that, it's very obvious that many people think there's "something wrong with" using master as the default name. If they didn't, there never would have been an issue in the first place because nobody would have proposed to change it. There is nobody out there advocating for the change without bringing up some strange hand-waving argument about colonialism. Not a single one of these people can demonstrate how using the name "master" actually causes harm - because it doesn't. But hordes of them are willing to argue for making the change anyway. > However it's weird if you say master is the "one true name" and it HAS to be master. Nobody says this. They say that they don't want others pushing (or literally pull-requesting, in many cases) changes on them for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with the business of their project. > Like, why do you care? That's odd. That's what some people point out. No, there's nothing strange about it at all. What is "odd" is the rhetorical strategy of trying to shame people for a benign choice, gaslight that they're the ones being insistent and ideological, and then gaslight that no such shaming is occurring. > For some people changing master -> main isn't a nothing burger, it's actively harmful. No, what's "actively harmful" is the idea that people should be compelled to change things because outsiders don't like them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism). Also the compatibility break mentioned above.
  - consteval 2y ago
    [flagged]

mixmastamyk 2y ago

You’ve reframed the disagreement about unnecessary work as “up in arms.” They look like sane folks who recommended not doing purely symbolic work. Something substantial perhaps, say promoting under-represented folks within psf would be something. You can’t eat branch names.

zahlman 2y ago
For what it's worth, David Mertz would agree with you (https://discuss.python.org/t/why-im-leaving-discuss-python-org/58093/4 https://discuss.python.org/t/why-im-leaving-discuss-python-o...). He got kicked out, too.

animuchan 2y ago

We can mostly agree that the people acting on the irresistible urge to rename git branches specifically look bad now. Turns out it's a slippery slope, who would've thunk.