

How Git shows the patriarchal nature of the software industry - tomjakubowski
http://megan.geek.nz/how-git-shows-the-patriarchal-nature-of-the-software-industry/

======
marshray
I don't mean to be insensitive about the poster's situation, but it would just
seem to me that if you're going through with the long and dramatic process of
changing your gender that the commit behavior of a common source code control
system would be the least of your considerations.

Men may not change names as often as women, but they certainly change email
addresses, job titles, and other affiliations. This creates very similar
practical considerations, not just with SCCS, but with mailing list archives,
web archives, and most every other form of electronic record.

This poster seems to have an issue with the static and un-malleable nature of
the written past in general.

~~~
Johngibb
That's true, and I think assigning malice to this situation is unfounded. But
maybe this is a problem worth solving?

------
karmajunkie
This is the stupidest thing you'll read today. Commits are cryptographically
signed, which is why you can't change details on them. Its a feature. Get over
it. Math isn't patriarchal.

~~~
Johngibb
Come on, don't reject it so flippantly. Sure, for the case of a woman getting
married and taking a new last name, I doubt it's that big of a deal - you can
change your name for future commits, but your old name will exist for
historical commits. However, there _are_ cases where you might not want your
former name around (transgender, or even something like privacy / witness
protection). Right now, these folk _are_ being sort of excluded (however
inadvertently) and it's worth discussing ways to fix that.

