How Git shows the patriarchal nature of the software industry (geekfeminism.org) 3 points by secoif 12y ago ↗ HN
[–] timpattinson 12y ago ↗ What makes Git different from any other software that does this? [–] wmf 12y ago ↗ Nothing, but git is a prominent example of software that treats history as immutable. [–] TranquilMarmot 12y ago ↗ Isn't that sort of the point of git, though? To keep immutable records of progress being made on projects? [–] wmf 12y ago ↗ I think the article tries to raise the question of whether committer names need to be included in that immutable history or whether git could have done something else like using opaque committer IDs with a mutable ID-name mapping table.
[–] wmf 12y ago ↗ Nothing, but git is a prominent example of software that treats history as immutable. [–] TranquilMarmot 12y ago ↗ Isn't that sort of the point of git, though? To keep immutable records of progress being made on projects? [–] wmf 12y ago ↗ I think the article tries to raise the question of whether committer names need to be included in that immutable history or whether git could have done something else like using opaque committer IDs with a mutable ID-name mapping table.
[–] TranquilMarmot 12y ago ↗ Isn't that sort of the point of git, though? To keep immutable records of progress being made on projects? [–] wmf 12y ago ↗ I think the article tries to raise the question of whether committer names need to be included in that immutable history or whether git could have done something else like using opaque committer IDs with a mutable ID-name mapping table.
[–] wmf 12y ago ↗ I think the article tries to raise the question of whether committer names need to be included in that immutable history or whether git could have done something else like using opaque committer IDs with a mutable ID-name mapping table.
4 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 21.0 ms ] thread