llvm dev - Jun 2020 - 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
at 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> 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>
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/fe486f9b/attachment.html>

I hear you.

I'll reach out and see what I can do :)

-eric

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:56 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
wrote:
> 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
at 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> *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>
> *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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:44 AM
> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; 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?
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:32 AM
> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; 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?
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:23 AM
> *To:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; Mehdi AMINI
<joker.eph at gmail.com
> >
> *Cc:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>; llvm-dev <
> 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> 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 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/e5891700/attachment.html>

Thank you!  That is very much appreciated.

From: Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 11:59 AM
To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master`
branch?

I hear you.

I'll reach out and see what I can do :)

-eric

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:56 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at
intel.com<mailto:erich.keane at intel.com>> wrote:
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
at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/b7e238f5/attachment.html>

+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> On Behalf Of Keane,
Erich via llvm-dev
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 11:56 AM
To: Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <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
at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/bbc919dd/attachment-0001.html>

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>
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> *On Behalf Of
*Keane,
> Erich via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:56 AM
> *To:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <
> 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
at 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> *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>
> *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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:44 AM
> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; 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?
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:32 AM
> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; 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?
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:23 AM
> *To:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; Mehdi AMINI
<joker.eph at gmail.com
> >
> *Cc:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>; llvm-dev <
> 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> 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 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/20200619/745385df/attachment.html>

As I mentioned on another thread, we also use the term "slave" for the
BuildBot builders.  In the past, I was told this was due to being stuck on
an old version of BuildBot.  Fortunately, there is already work in progress
to update BuildBot to a newer version.  Since that's also going affect all
the build machines, perhaps changing the name of the main branch should
happen simultaneously, when the BuildBots are already being impacted.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:22 PM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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> *On Behalf Of
*Keane,
> Erich via llvm-dev
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:56 AM
> *To:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <
> 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
at 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> *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>
> *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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:44 AM
> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; 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?
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:32 AM
> *To:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>
> *Cc:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; 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?
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:23 AM
> *To:* Petr Penzin <penzin.dev at gmail.com>; Mehdi AMINI
<joker.eph at gmail.com
> >
> *Cc:* Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com>; llvm-dev <
> 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> 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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200619/723041a0/attachment.html>

> On Jun 19, 2020, at 15:22, Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> +1 to waiting until git and/or github decide on a new name for the default
branch.
+1. There’s no naming emergency and there’s value in matching whatever the
standard/default is
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/60db60cd/attachment.html>