<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>+1 to the notion of changing the branch name in general.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Philip</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/19/20 2:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI via
llvm-dev wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANF-O=bar2=sNHGCWHjU0dZ4-QtiZ5PzKMtte46c3dkJuMhX9g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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".</div>
<div>This naming is <a
href="https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html#rfc.section.1.1"
moz-do-not-send="true">unfortunate</a> as it can <a
href="https://dev.to/afrodevgirl/replacing-master-with-main-in-github-2fjf"
moz-do-not-send="true">hurt some contributors</a>, and
there is really no technical advantage that I know of to
favor this convention over another.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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", ...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since I'm on this topic, we should also likely look
into the pervasive use of whitelist/blacklist in the
project.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thoughts?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- </div>
<div>Mehdi</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>