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

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:43 PM Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 15:38, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> That was just an example of a concrete time. Other transitions requiring
> wide coordination have had some release-associated timeframe (like minimum
> toolchain/cmake upgrades), so I thought it would just be a logical
> semi-arbitrary point in time.
>

I saw using release in the past as a good sync point for toolchain/cmake
upgrade before it as very practical effects: as such changes are very
visible to folks consuming the release and we can include a heads up in the
release notes or a warning when they execute CMake.
Hopefully we have more freedom with the development branch: a few weeks
head up for the bot infrastructure and the folks downstream having
automation pulling from upstream continuously.
Ultimately this is just a "simple" renaming: there shouldn't be deep
configuration changes or infrastructure to rewire.

Note that even for a casual user it would go unnoticed: cloning the repo
from GitHub automatically pull the default branch which is a configurable
name.

(Note: We also need to reconfigure Phabricator at the same time).

-- 
Mehdi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/78b84c59/attachment.html>