[VOTE] Switch 'master' to 'main' branch for repositories

[Imre Kaloz]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 10:06 +0100, Imre Kaloz wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>

<...>

> Dude, you have a right to free speech, but your right to say it doesn't
> make it any more sensible or reasonable.
>
> It almost sounds like you're as bad as the normies, having a mostly
> emotional reaction to the very idea that we should tweak our
> terminology a tiny bit to seem more welcoming, and be decent people.

You are falling for the mistake of schematizing people for the sake of 
convenience. People (either neurotypical or neurodivergent) are not the 
same so our values are not the same. You can be welcoming and a decent 
human being sticking to your own values and internal moral compass. It 
is up to the individual to decide how much external validation he/she 
requires.

> Because the actual technical cost here, while not entire zero, is
> probably less effort than we've spent on debating the topic already.

Being submissive is always easier than standing your ground. I skip the 
historical examples this time :P

> If you want to spend your life campaigning for access to git
> repositories to be trivial and people never to lose a few seconds
> having to tweak the URL, go campaign for port 9418 to be open on all
> corporate firewalls, or at least for the firewall rules to be set to
> *reject* rather than drop. Now *those* extra seconds you gain for
> people might actually be worthwhile, and the gains might continue into
> the future rather than being long-forgotten by the end of the year.

Using your example you are the one arguing in favor of disabling the 
firewall because during coffee break someone from marketing told you that 
he belives that sometime in the future someone else might write a super 
important software and it might require one of the ports to be opened.


Imre