Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding 'master' by itself #68

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Adding 'master' by itself #68

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

johnbent
Copy link

The list includes 'master-slave' but does not include 'master' by itself. I think that it should.

https://inclusivenaming.org/language/word-list/
https://github.com/github/renaming

Signed-off-by: John Bent [email protected]

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

  • The commit message follows our guidelines
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)

What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?

Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make due to this PR?)

Other information:

The list includes 'master-slave' but does not include 'master' by itself.  I think that it should.  

https://inclusivenaming.org/language/word-list/
https://github.com/github/renaming

Signed-off-by: John Bent <[email protected]>
@caitlinelfring
Copy link
Member

Hi @johnbent! Thanks for the PR! I prefer that any new rules that a user of woke wants to use be added to their own config file instead of being added as a default. See https://github.com/get-woke/woke#rules.

That said, I do agree that master alone should be in the default rule set, but maybe with a "warning" severity, in case some orgs have not moved away from the "master" branch name yet. It might help push them along.

I also see some failing tests, are you able to resolve them?

@johnbent
Copy link
Author

johnbent commented May 6, 2021

Thanks @caitlinelfring . Having users maintain their own lists is the exact problem I'm hoping to solve because I think these lists should be community maintained. I don't trust myself nor other engineers in my org to always know which words are offensive. I'd much rather entrust that responsibility to a larger community.

@caitlinelfring
Copy link
Member

Closing in favor of #104

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants