As of today I am supporting `main` as a git branch on all projects I touch.
Wherever possible I'll also disable `master`, but when it's not, `main` will be... the *main* branch.


Turns out that using non-historically loaded language is actually easier to understand than the current mainstream.

White/black list? Awkard, not obvious if you don't have "white: OK, black: KO" internalised.

Master/[slave|servant]? Awkward, not obvious if you aren't used to absolute, totalitarian and static power dynamics.


allow/deny list is simple, direct, descriptive.

[main|primary]/secondary is simple, direct, descriptive; and is more dynamic.
It's easy to imagine things that are "primary" in certain contexts and "secondary" in others, while "master/slave" has a hint of... immutability to it.

Show thread

And this is not crazy talk, things like the amazingly good Knot DNS server struggle to explain this in their documentation:

If you replace "master" with "primary" and "slave" with "secondary", suddenly the fact that this authority is relative to each zone becomes much easier to explain (and understand).

Show thread

This is a topic I've been thinking about for a long time, and what poked me to start changing this default was this:

Apparently some people find that controversial; I call it better, more readable and understandable code and documentation.

Show thread

And just as a reminder: you don't have to change all the things at once, step-by-step incremental change compounds and goes a long way.

It's also fine to make mistakes and correct them, see this recent-enough example:

Show thread

@evilham It's not about code readability though. And i for one think that we shouldn't allow some asshats to derail the discourse in that direction. Nor is this new or controversial. The ATA-2 standard released in '96 replaced "master/slave" with "Device 0/Device 1" and i can't remember anyone getting upset about it. As society tries to move towards more equality, open racism is making a comeback, and that's the real problem we need to push back against imho.

@tauli I totally agree. My point is that there are even tangible positive side-effects unrelated to these topics.

Which means: defending usage of those terms doesn't even have a technical argument to it, but is actively defending bigotry just for bigotry's sake.

Sign in to participate in the conversation – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community