[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

Philip Reames via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 19 13:44:14 PDT 2020


-1 on rushing this.

Philip

On 6/19/20 12:25 PM, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev wrote:
> I disagree with your timing concerns. Changing is still 
> straightforward and I'd like to see this done within 1-2 weeks.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -eric
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:22 PM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com 
> <mailto:ctetreau at quicinc.com>> wrote:
>
>     +1 to waiting until git and/or github decide on a new name for the
>     default branch. I think there is a compelling reason to change the
>     name of the default branch to match community expectations, if for
>     no other reason. If we leave it  as “master” after git changes it,
>     then we have to explain that we left it as “master” because we
>     could not agree on whether or not “master” is non-inclusive. If we
>     pick a new name that is not “master”, but does not match the
>     default branch that git or github eventually converge on, we still
>     have to explain why we are different. If we change it twice, then
>     we have to incur the non-zero cost associated with making the
>     change twice, which I feel would be a waste of community resources.
>
>     I do not believe that we need to change it as soon as physically
>     possible. I think we can clearly document (say, in the readme on
>     github), that we intend to change it once the community converges
>     on a new name. We can provide a deadline (say, 6 months) for the
>     community to decide on a new default branch name before we make
>     any change. If this deadline passes, then we can decide on a new
>     name for the default branch and stick with it moving forward.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>        Christopher Tetreault
>
>     *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> *On Behalf Of *Keane,
>     Erich via llvm-dev
>     *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:56 AM
>     *To:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com
>     <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>     *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we
>     rename `master` branch?
>
>     To be clear: I’m concerned about the amount of our infrastructure
>     (as well as downstream infrastructure, this would be actually
>     pretty painful for both of my downstreams) that the community
>     would have break/need fixing as a part of that.  So I want this to
>     happen ONCE.
>
>     I think it is well motivated now, but switching from ‘default’ to
>     ‘main’ when that becomes the ‘standard’ one seems way less
>     motivated.  So I just forsee it being a wart on the project for a
>     very long time.
>
>     That said, I’ve done a bit of research and the git mailing list
>     thread
>     (https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com/#t)
>     as well as just news reports about github, and they all seem to be
>     converging on ‘main’, though I don’t have good insight into it.
>
>     If ‘we’ as a community (and I think we do?) have a contact at
>     github could ping someone and get a reasonably quick confirmation
>     that they are switching to ‘main’, it would be appreciated/should
>     guide our decision.
>
>     *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> *On Behalf Of *Keane,
>     Erich via llvm-dev
>     *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:48 AM
>     *To:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we
>     rename `master` branch?
>
>     My understanding is the biggest concern about the name change is
>     the ‘cost’ associated with needing to update each of the
>     individual buildbots (and my understanding is that this would be a
>     somewhat non-centralized action) configurations.  So I think we’re
>     talking about more than just 1 person running the script in 10
>     minutes.
>
>     *From:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com
>     <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
>     *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:44 AM
>     *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com
>     <mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>>
>     *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com
>     <mailto:penzin.dev at gmail.com>>; Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com
>     <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>     <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we
>     rename `master` branch?
>
>     I mean, we could change it twice? There are about a hundred
>     scripts out there for doing it.
>
>     -eric
>
>     On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:40 AM Keane, Erich
>     <erich.keane at intel.com <mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>> wrote:
>
>         Do we have any ability to reach out to github (at least?) to
>         see what they are going to do?  I’d very much like to avoid
>         being the odd-project-out here.
>
>         *From:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com
>         <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
>         *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:32 AM
>         *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com
>         <mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>>
>         *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com
>         <mailto:penzin.dev at gmail.com>>; Mehdi AMINI
>         <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>>; llvm-dev
>         <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>         *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we
>         rename `master` branch?
>
>         There's really no guarantee that things will shake out the
>         same in near term between the projects.
>
>         -eric
>
>         On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:31 AM Keane, Erich
>         <erich.keane at intel.com <mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>> wrote:
>
>             I’m a bit mixed on this.  While yes, we should change this
>             as soon as is practical, it would be a shame to pick
>             something sufficiently different from the rest of the
>             world, as that would be anti-inclusive (though in a
>             technical way).  It would be REALLY good if we knew what
>             github/git were GOING to name theirs and just do that as
>             soon as possible.
>
>             *From:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com
>             <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
>             *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:23 AM
>             *To:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com
>             <mailto:penzin.dev at gmail.com>>; Mehdi AMINI
>             <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>>
>             *Cc:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com
>             <mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>>; llvm-dev
>             <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>             *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can
>             we rename `master` branch?
>
>             While I appreciate this sentiment we should not block our
>             changes on a project over which we have no control.
>             Changing the name and the documentation is easy and we
>             should do this today.
>
>             Thanks.
>
>             -eric
>
>             On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:49 AM Petr Penzin via llvm-dev
>             <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
>             wrote:
>
>                 +1
>
>                 Git uses `master` branch in quite a few places in its
>                 docs and `git init` produces a `master` branch.
>                 ideally, a change to git should drive all of this -
>                 that way there would be no confusion.
>
>                 -Petr
>
>                 On 6/19/20 10:45 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>                     I agree with this.  As much as I dislike the name
>                     that I believe github will choose, we should just
>                     do whatever everyone else is doing.
>
>                     Note that in addition to the github discussion,
>                     there is some extensive discussion on the .git
>                     mailing list (IIRC) about choosing a new name as
>                     well. I hope github waits until that choses a name
>                     as well.
>
>                     *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
>                     <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On
>                     Behalf Of *Philip Reames via llvm-dev
>                     *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 10:39 AM
>                     *To:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>
>                     <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>; llvm-dev
>                     <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>                     <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>                     *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in
>                     LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?
>
>                     +1 to the notion of changing the branch name in
>                     general.
>
>                     However, I think there's a practical aspect which
>                     needs considered.  Currently, "master" is the
>                     defacto convention used across many, many
>                     projects.  There's currently a lot of conversation
>                     going on across many projects about naming.  I
>                     think it's really important that rather than just
>                     picking something that we wait and see what the
>                     new convention is, and adopt that.  I've seen
>                     reporting that GitHub is considering changing the
>                     default name for new projects.  If that does end
>                     up happening - I hope it does - I think we should
>                     use whatever name they pick.  Convention is
>                     critical for ease of use of new contributors.
>
>                     Philip
>
>                     p.s. There's a bunch of other terminology in use
>                     which is potentially problematic, but I'm
>                     intentionally restricting my response to this
>                     one.  I think each deserves discussion on it's own
>                     merits.
>
>                     On 6/19/20 2:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>                         Hi,
>
>                         When we moved to GitHub a few months ago, we
>                         used without more consideration the "master"
>                         convention to name our development branch. On
>                         SVN it used to be just "trunk".
>
>                         This naming is unfortunate
>                         <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html#rfc.section.1.1> as
>                         it can hurt some contributors
>                         <https://dev.to/afrodevgirl/replacing-master-with-main-in-github-2fjf>,
>                         and there is really no technical advantage
>                         that I know of to favor this convention over
>                         another.
>
>                         I am perfectly aware that `master` has other
>                         significations than the master/slave meaning,
>                         and I personally never made this association
>                         in the past. However I'm also able to
>                         recognize that I'm privileged here, and that
>                         not everyone is in the same position.
>
>                         As we intend to be an inclusive community, I
>                         propose that we change the name of our
>                         development branch and that we adopt instead a
>                         more neutral terminology for the LLVM
>                         monorepo. Possible names are "dev", "trunk",
>                         "main", "default", ...
>
>                         We need to plan a transition as all the bots
>                         will need to be updated to track this new
>                         branch instead, but these are minor technical
>                         details, nothing compared to the SVN->Git
>                         migration we went through.
>
>                         Since I'm on this topic, we should also likely
>                         look into the pervasive use of
>                         whitelist/blacklist in the project.
>
>                         Thoughts?
>
>                         -- 
>
>                         Mehdi
>
>                         _______________________________________________
>
>                         LLVM Developers mailing list
>
>                         llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org  <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>
>                         https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>                     _______________________________________________
>
>                     LLVM Developers mailing list
>
>                     llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org  <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>
>                     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 LLVM Developers mailing list
>                 llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>                 https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/776dff25/attachment.html>


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list