|
|
|
|
|
|
by tomp
1630 days ago
|
|
|
In your mind, it’s “fine work” but in their minds, it’s winning a political battle, and they’re just empowered for the next battle. Bad politics (exclusionary, racist, destructive, forcefully equalising, speech controlling, bullying, anti-meritocratic - i.e. wokeism) need to be opposed. If the change was proposed & made on technical merit, I wouldn’t oppose it. But it wasn’t - it was based on ideological bullying |
|
|
Why should I spend energy to try to gauge their motivations? And why should I care if I don't like the outcome of that estimation? I feel your criticism is refusing to admit a (low-priority, highly cosmetic) bugfix into an open source project because you don't like the political views of the committer.
To me, it's a pure calculation:
* To me, the words "master" and "main" equally well describe the most-important branch of my git repository.
* To some people, "master" is offensive. I don't understand this at all, but to these people, "main" is better.
* Someone else is offering to do the work.
So letting them is a net change for some people, and neutral for me. So why not?
> Bad politics (exclusionary, racist, destructive, forcefully equalising, speech controlling, bullying, anti-meritocratic - i.e. wokeism) need to be opposed.
Also by ignoring non-negative contributions from such people?
> If the change was proposed & made on technical merit, I wouldn’t oppose it. But it wasn’t - it was based on ideological bullying
That's the pointing: I'm arguing it has non-negative technical merits. So why care?
I'd be all on your side if "main" wasn't actually an equally good word! In fact, I think I'm driving people a little bit nuts by opposing things that have small negative impact all the time. I try not to compromise in that department. But I'm simply arguing that changing "master" to "main" here has no negative impact.