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

Fri Jun 19 10:45:33 PDT 2020

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> On Behalf Of Philip Reames via llvm-dev
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:39 AM
To: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/2de4d16d/attachment-0001.html>