Ancestors

Written by froztbyte@awful.systems on 2024-10-21 at 05:48

Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 27 October 2024

https://awful.systems/post/2668740

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from froztbyte@awful.systems

Written by froztbyte@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 06:44

guest star of recent sneers kache is at it again

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from froztbyte@awful.systems

Written by BlueMonday1984@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 12:11

Update: The QRTs are mainly sneering, but this one’s particularly good

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BlueMonday1984@awful.systems

Toot

Written by bitofhope@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 17:49

I found the git master branch naming controversy a bit misguided, since to my mind the analogy was more “master copy” or “master recording” than “master of a slave”. This isn’t IDE. Who names their VCS branch “slave”?

Well, I guess that guy does.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bitofhope@awful.systems

Descendants

Written by BlueMonday1984@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 18:30

I found the git master branch naming controversy a bit misguided, since to my mind the analogy was more “master copy” or “master recording” than “master of a slave”. This isn’t IDE. Who names their VCS branch “slave”?

In a better world, this would’ve probably been a solid argument for letting the master/slave naming convention stick around. We don’t live in a better world.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from BlueMonday1984@awful.systems

Written by froztbyte@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 20:17

the thing is that the git branch naming was only one of the places among many where this was changed, and in many databases (and often other server-subsystem architectures) master/slave terminology was quite present. iirc there are still some that stick by it today (mostly out of direct choice by project maintainers)

it’s the same thing as whitelist/blacklist, vs allowlist/denylist (or others) - when there’s bad shit linked in baggage, and the cost of changing it (by habit and choice) isn’t all that much, there’s not really any reason to hold by the the old loaded shit

harm reduction comes in many forms

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from froztbyte@awful.systems

Written by YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 20:34

Yeah. I remember when the company I used to work for switched our style guide to allowlist/denylist and apart from That One Guy the overall reaction was a big “eh? sure, whatever”. Nobody is out here pretending that this kind of change is going to completely end racism or even that it’s going to have a major impact, but past a certain point continuing to casually throw the memory of chattel slavery around is just cringe.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems

Written by bitofhope@awful.systems on 2024-10-22 at 20:49

Note that I was specifically talking about branch names in Git, where it’s debatable if the default name “master” even originated from the master/slave nomenclature.

The problematic nature of the term is a lot more evident in other contexts where a counterpart of the “master” is in fact called a “slave”. Whether that’s reason enough to change the names in any particular instance is not something I’ll comment on.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bitofhope@awful.systems