[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?
Chris Lattner via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 19 09:26:11 PDT 2020
I completely agree and this has been raised in other forums as well. GitHub is planning to change the default name of the ‘master’ branch for new repos - I think we should wait to see what they move to, so we can decide whether its makes sense to align with that.
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 2:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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".
> 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.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev