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

[Greg Bedwell via llvm-dev]

Speaking entirely personally here as I've not had a chance to discuss this
with anyone else at Sony yet.

Our internal CI jobs still refer to trunk and anecdotally I still hear
trunk and master being used interchangeably so I don't think going back to
trunk would cause any great churn at this end. I'm in favour.

I'd imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to keep the trunk and master
branches in sync for some transition period. I'm not sure if git symbolic
references would be feasible, otherwise we could create trunk from master,
restrict pushes to master and run a bot to just keep fast forwarding it to
match trunk. That way although committers would have to change to pushing
to trunk, bots could have a longer transition period with read-only access
from master.

In terms of blacklist/whitelist it's never a thing that had occurred to me
until reading recent discussions but I'd be in favour of recommending
denylist/allowlist as preferable alternatives in future.

-Greg



On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:55, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 19/06/2020 10:48, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote:
> > 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".
>
> I never got around to updating it in my brain, so still call it trunk.
> I would be very happy to see reality updated to reflect my mental model.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200619/0a043cc3/attachment.html>