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

Fri Jun 19 12:43:44 PDT 2020

Sounds great. Thanks Mehdi. FWIW I'm working on getting in touch with
github :)

-eric

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:39 PM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Eric that we likely don't want to wait O(months), but my
> optimistic view is that Github may settle on a name before we figure out
> the technical roll-out plan!
> So what about agreeing on the principle of the renaming (I have seen much
> opposition) and making progress on the concrete technical step for the
> renaming (independently of the actual name)?
>
> I'm interested to hear more about the actual problem Matt perceives with
> respect to the release actually: why should the release have any impact
> with the development branch?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:25 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I disagree with your timing concerns. Changing is still straightforward
>> and I'd like to see this done within 1-2 weeks.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:22 PM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com>
>> 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> *On Behalf Of *Keane,
>>> Erich via llvm-dev
>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:56 AM
>>> *To:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <
>>> 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> *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>
>>> *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>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:44 AM
>>> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
>>> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> 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>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:32 AM
>>> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
>>> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> 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>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:23 AM
>>> *To:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; Mehdi AMINI <
>>> joker.eph at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>; llvm-dev <
>>> 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> 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>
>>> <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> <joker.eph at gmail.com>; llvm-dev
>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> 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/20200619/3d2d1fe2/attachment.html>