DEV Community

Discussion on: The bigger picture behind the GitHub master branch name change

Collapse
 
stevetaylor profile image
Steve Taylor

I’d be all for breaking countless integrations and fragmenting an entire ecosystem (which is what this change will do) if it would actually make a difference. But git doesn’t use the master/slave metaphor, so it won’t. It’s more like master copy. Master is a homonym. Unfortunately, most English speakers struggle such a basic concept as the homonym. There are plenty of meanings and usages of “master” that aren’t the least bit offensive.

It’s also been suggested by numerous black American devs that this proposal is insulting - that somehow they lack the intelligence to understand that it’s not a reference to slavery and that they need to be coddled. Don’t take my word for it. Jump on Twitter and you’ll see plenty of opinions flying around.

I’m all for rooting out genuinely offensive metaphors in tech, starting with the most offensive and working our way down towards the least offensive, until we come to a point where going any further has little to no positive outcome and could even be potentially harmful. For example, the master/slave metaphor has to go. The male/female metaphor potentially has to go as we don’t need the innuendo in a professional setting.

Collapse
 
sylviapap profile image
Sylvia Pap • Edited

Did you read anything I wrote past the title? I don't need to "take your word" - I address everything you've said here. "Jump on twitter" ... ? I embedded several relevant tweets expressing these very ideas. I say several times this post is not about the specifics of the github/master debate.