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

[Adrian McCarthy via llvm-dev]

To be clear, I have no real opinion on timing.  I was just floating an idea
that might have been logistically easier.  I don't know when the BuildBot
update is expected to land, but I assumed it might be soon, since the
update was announced back in February.  Updating our vocabulary has been
overdue for a while.  I don't really care if it happens all at once or in a
series of steps, as long as we're making progress.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:20 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> To elaborate a bit: we should change the wording because it has been shown
> to be more inclusive and does actually matter. To the rest of the
> suggestions in the article: we should do those too. There's no reason to
> put out a dichotomy here.
>
> -eric
>
>
>> -eric
>>
>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20200619/85df04dc/attachment-0001.html>