[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 19 13:44:14 PDT 2020
-1 on rushing this.
Philip
On 6/19/20 12:25 PM, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:44 AM
> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com
> <mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>>
> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com
> <mailto:penzin.dev at gmail.com>>; Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com
> <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:32 AM
> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com
> <mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>>
> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com
> <mailto:penzin.dev at gmail.com>>; Mehdi AMINI
> <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>>; llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:echristo at gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:23 AM
> *To:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com
> <mailto:penzin.dev at gmail.com>>; Mehdi AMINI
> <joker.eph at gmail.com <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com
> <mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>>; llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:joker.eph at gmail.com>; llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> <mailto: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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200619/776dff25/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list