[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 13:45:51 PDT 2020
+1 on the incrementalism. We should start with the easy stuff (like
code comments mentioning blacklists), and stage the operational stuff in
a prompt, but not rushed manner.
Philip
On 6/19/20 12:37 PM, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> I can understand this perspective, but I disagree. There's no
> fundamental reason why we need to change everything at once.
> Incremental progress can and should happen as soon as we're able to
> make the changes.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -eric
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:26 PM Adrian McCarthy <amccarth at google.com
> <mailto:amccarth at google.com>> wrote:
>
> As I mentioned on another thread, we also use the term "slave" for
> the BuildBot builders. In the past, I was told this was due to
> being stuck on an old version of BuildBot. Fortunately, there is
> already work in progress to update BuildBot to a newer version.
> Since that's also going affect all the build machines, perhaps
> changing the name of the main branch should happen simultaneously,
> when the BuildBots are already being impacted.
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:22 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> 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 <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/20200619/909d07cc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list