[_never_k]

Your first bullet is an argument against this change as being suboptimal. That there's a more optimally utilitarian use of the resources, which I get. The thing I don't get about this argument is that nothing Github (or any of us except for some weirdos) does is optimally utilitarian. They have a cartoon mascot! They don't _need_ that. You're not upset that they pay someone to draw Octocat, why be upset about this?

Your second bullet is an argument against this change from the position that it's an unasked for burden. In general, I get that. In the specific context of software engineering, it's a little more surprising. Tools, APIs, interfaces, terminology, etc... are in constant flux. Software has to be actively maintained to be kept functional. Software engineers have to always be learning in order to keep current. A vendor changing something like this is par for the course, right? Why such an extreme reaction?

[gruez]

It's a combination of the two factors. If a group of people want to one up each other by refactoring their side projects to be as woke as possible, that's fine by me. But if they're doing it and causing breakages and/or forcing everyone else to adapt, that's where I draw the line.

>A vendor changing something like this is par for the course, right? Why such an extreme reaction?

I'd be similarly pissed off if an upstream API provider suddenly decided to change all their identifier names for stylistic purposes. eg. the CTO woke up one day and decided that all of their API endpoints should be changed from camel case to snake case.