• Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    But why even? There’s no risk to changing it and some risk to keeping it. That’s the reason for the push to change it. Keeping something just because it’s tradition isn’t a good idea outside ceremonies.

    • weker01@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      There is definitely a risk in changing it. Many automation systems that assume there is a master branch needed to be changed. Something that’s trivial yes but changing a perfectly running system is always a potential risk.

      Also stuff like tutorials and documentation become outdated.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        If they can’t change what’s essentially a variable name without issues then should they be doing the job?

        • MadhuGururajan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          pray tell me how would you change the name in every script of an automation system that refers to master? Remember, you have to justify the time and cost to your manager or director!

    • undefinedValue@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      I don’t accept that because everyone’s doing it or “group-think” are valid excuses do jump on a trend. Things like this maybe don’t seem like a big deal for you but for those that hate this culture it’s just one more example of a dumb change being shoved down their throats. This could also be the straw that breaks the camels back.