If you have a comment on my git branch take, then by all means share it. I posted it because, as the maintainer of a git host, it behooves me to be aware of major changes to git, the motivations behind them, and their technical impact.

I'm not going to change my opinion overnight, but this change isn't going to be implemented overnight, and if I've missed the mark then your feedback will have plenty of time to sink in and steer me straight.

@sir I understand the change as a form of support for anti-racism movements and ideas. Even if initially I was on your same side of the argument - I didn't get how anyone could mean master as in human master versus slaves - I later changed opinion and I support the cause. People are talking about it and that is exactly what's needed, raise awareness and promote confront and discussion. I only fear that the promoted confront and discussion in limited to the name and not on what's behind

@kriive hm, I haven't heard this take before. Thanks for sharing.

I think that this view is somewhat undermined by how GitHub used the campaign to their advantage.


@kriive to elaborate on how GitHub's response undermines this: when you use a frivolous problem (branch name) as a front for a serious issue (racism), it can easily be manipulated to enable corporate virtue signalling, keyboard warriorism, and so on, by addressing the frivolous problem.

GitHub was able to control the narrative about their own ethical failings by making a trivial change and painting themselves as leaders against racism, and yet still today they collaborate with ICE, which constitutes /official, monetary support/ for an organization responsible for rapidly escalating systemic racism.

@sir @kriive I read that three times now. Either you’re not making sense or github has it backwards. Don’t you enable keyboard warriorism, corporate virtue signalling and allow more frivolous problems to pop up by handing over the control like that?

@kriive and addressing the keyboard warrior perspective, I generally dislike campaigns which focus on problems which are easily solved from the comfort of your chair and don't actually address any of the real issues, and I feel that this qualifies.

During the waves of racially motivated police violence in my country, you know what I did instead of changing all of my repositories from master to main? I donated to the ACLU and to a bail organization in my city. Took me a lot less time and I bet it had a lot more impact.

@sir @kriive the number of man hours wasted on changing this stupid branch name would be better spent in time and billable hours by donating to marginalized communities. It would actually change something.

@sir I agree with you that it looks like a GitHub's big PR stunt, but at the end of the day, who cares? At the moment I'm using this rationale with my projects, I'll keep master in old projects and embrace the new main branch name in new ones. But we should strive to make the message clear: this is the tech world as a whole that carries a message, it shouldn't be only a circle jerk to dissolve our sins and "no need to donate, I already changed my principal branch name to main"

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!