So you decide to remove ‘master’/‘slave’ language but then co-opt the language of a movement to fight discrimination and violence… Am I the only one who finds this problematic?
You’re right, it’s a serious matter, not to be treated like a meme. It’s OK to make memes out of movies or video games blunders, but here we’re speaking of lost lives.
No, you are not; especially, since the current implementation of the PR feature appears mandatory for public projects, whereas nearly all others¹ have become optional.
Various of the changes to the service for hosting open-source projects in recent years press towards a disappointingly ritualized imitation of the archetypical software bazaar². What if I specifically want alternate versions of a library to template — or worse, reimplement! — rather than fork, and communicate proposed changes in a manner less reminiscent of plasmids³?
Yes, I prefer notes over hyperlinks, especially as backlash against the accelerated stuffing of dynamic surprises⁴ into documents served by the Internet.
I quote from an old dictionary:
Wikipedia’s article on a much broader topic contains a reasonable executive summary of the narrower idea, and skimming this might shed light on the parallel I see between plasmids and software patches. I am not drawing any specific comparison between permissionless innovation and infectious disease, for that is far outside the scope of this discussion.
The author of the aforementioned dictionary wrote of surprises:
The proliferation of different features accomplishing overlapping goals in any site is a sad departure from this guiding principle, and GitHub’s pervasive attempts to make its guides and suggestions sparkle with linguistic flare does not improve the situation.