This
Comment on If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"?
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks agoHonestly, while the controversy is incredibly stupid, it’s not something to get worked up about. Not good for your heart 😜
You don’t have to relabel anything, just keep using old names for old stuff and maybe consider switching to main for your next GitHub project? It’s honestly not that big of a deal.
Paraponera_clavata@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
yogsototh@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
I work for s company that suddenly asked to rename a lot of stuff. This had consequences. It cost time, money, and created a disconnect between internal to the dev vocabulary that couldn’t be changed easily and user facing vocabulary. Also we were lucky but this could gave broken some long used API that we are proud not to version because the policy we have internally is “we will NEVER break the API”. And for 8 years we didn’t.
FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
That’s why I said to not rename existing stuff, but to consider changing default names for new things. Or don’t. It’s not the end of the world.
ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
It’s all good and well until you start working in a repo that has both master and main branches for some reason, and it is not clear which is actually the master/main branch.
MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 4 weeks ago
Then you’re working in an idiotic repo. You could just as well have have a master and an actual_master branch. Similar idiocy.
ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
It only takes one person to fuck it up. I agree it’s stupid, but introducing a conflicting standard increases the chances of someone fucking it up in the name of progressiveness
SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
A place I used to work at had that… The corp had rolled out a non-delete policy with something akin to
*master, so when someone made a `abrv_master’ branch it got protected and couldn’t be deleted anymore.