On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:02 AM D.E. Goodman-Wilson <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Did we hear the testimony of a single black person that was offended > by the word? > > > Nobody affected by this change actually asked for this change > > Five minutes searching Twitter will reveal a great number of Black git users championing this change. This is anecdotal evidence. We all live in our own digital bubble. Every person's Twitter feed is different, and Google search results depend on where you live, and your past searches. You may find "a great number" of users that match that criteria, what I find is only people criticizing the move, and after five minutes I haven't found a single black person actually offended by the current name. > How is reopening this discussion anything but a distraction? This discussion never happened. Everyone in the June thread argued about the different names of the potential branch, and the culture war implications. Virtually *nobody* argued about the manner of implementation: deprecation period, clear warnings, Git 3.0 consideration. I'd argue *that* was the distraction. In 2008 people started multiple threads *after* the sudden change to git-foo without warning happened. If we do the same, this discussion will happen again. I'm just the canary in the coal mine giving you a heads up. Choosing to ignore the very real danger doesn't make the very real danger go away, you are just delaying it and making it potentially bigger. You choose to ignore the canary at your own peril. This is precisely what happened in 2008. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
