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

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Fangrui Song via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
> On 2020-06-19, Justin Hibbits via llvm-dev wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:38:02 +0100
> >Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 16:43, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> > If anyone's keeping track of the voting:
> >> > +1 for "dev" (contrasts with "release")
> >> > +1 for "trunk" (historical and consistent with the branch metaphor)
> >> > -1 for "main"
> >>
> >> Hey! At least one +1 for "main" from me!
> >>
> >> Also, on -1 for "trunk" from Arm.
> >>
> >> I may have missed some, too.
> >>
> >> I agree with Chris we should wait for Github, mostly because that
> >> would be looking over a much wider scope and will be choosing
> >> something that more people are happy with.
> >>
> >> Moreover, more people will use the Github name as their main branch
> >> and will be "surprised" why ours is different and we'll have to
> >> explain.
> >>
> >> Least surprise principle is always good.
> >
> >This is a reason I can support... least surprise, consistent with other
> >projects on the platform.  However I may disagree with the reasoning
> >behind GitHub's changing (which reeks of arrogance on their part),
> >maintaining consistency of this project for users of other projects on
> >the platform is respectable and acceptable.
> >
> >- Justin
>
> I agree that we should just wait for Github.
>
> * Paul Robinson
> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:46:19 +0000
> >> "Keane, Erich via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > If the name of our branch causes anxiety/difficulty for a significant
> >> > portion of our population, it is literally the least we can do to
> >> > choose a word that better respects the last few centuries of world
> >> > history.
> >>
> >> Honestly, if the name of a branch causes anxiety/difficulty, that's an
> >> issue on that population.
> >
> >Much as I hate to use this sort of language, that statement appears to
> >be blaming the victim for not getting over it and progressing to a
> >connotation-free reading of language.  But language is never free of
> >connotations, even if you and I don't see those connotations.
> >
> >I'm not seeing the change as a huge inconvenience, and this argument is
> >not much different than the head-butting over camelCase vs CamelCase.
> >Some people care deeply, others see little value in the change so why
> >bother; IMO it makes the people who care deeply happier, and it doesn't
> >particularly interfere with my work or cost me more than a bit of one
> >time adaptation.  Thus overall it is a plus for the community.
> >
> >If anyone's keeping track of the voting:
> >+1 for "dev" (contrasts with "release")
> >+1 for "trunk" (historical and consistent with the branch metaphor)
> >-1 for "main"
> >--paulr
>
> +1 for dev
> +1 for trunk
>
>
>
> The majority of people replying here seem to in favor of migrating off
> from 'master'. I still wanted to share the origin of 'master copy' and an
> opinion from the other side
>
> http://antirez.com/news/122


I disagree with any attempt to "both sides" this issue. There's no reason
to have done this.

-eric


>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200619/4c5347b3/attachment.html>