zlacker

>>elikog+(OP)
Skimming the letter makes it look like another attempt at pushing through their Code of Conduct (RFC98) targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry", whatever that means. Now going a step further by erasing the people in charge.

>>sudden+ja
> targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry"

Is targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" a bad thing?

>>Pareto+Gb
When, for people pushing this targeting, fascism/bigotry means having a branch in your repo names master I absolutely believe targeting ideas rooted in fascism/bigotry is a bad thing.

>>rs_rs_+je
On one hand, I struggle to think that people might actually care about switching "master" to "main", as opposed to making wider improvements to inclusivity.

On the other hand, I don't have a strong attachment at all to naming a branch "master" and can easily rename it without a second thought.

>>tripdo+dk
> I don't have a strong attachment at all to naming a branch "master" and can easily rename it without a second thought.

It's easy only if you don't care about all the people who already cloned your repo.

Recovering from remote repos renaming their default branches is no fun.

>>jwilk+9l2
And yet, branches disappearing is not uncommon. Changing your remote branch name is trivial, but being made aware of it is the problem. It's been a while since this change was done, but if it was still being proposed, the git client saying "oi, this branch changed name" and offering to update things would be a bit more user friendly.