llvm dev - Jun 2020 - Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

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> On Behalf Of Philip
Reames via llvm-dev
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:39 AM
To: 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?


+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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/2de4d16d/attachment-0001.html>

+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> *On Behalf Of 
> *Philip Reames via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 10:39 AM
> *To:* 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?
>
> +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
> 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/20200619/2f389002/attachment.html>

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 listllvm-dev at
lists.llvm.orghttps://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/20200619/7686eb9a/attachment.html>