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

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.  It has absolutely no relation to the dark
history of the world, none at all.  Anyone who casts it in such a light
is either signalling or trolling.

I won't stop any kind of rename, but renames have to be done for a
technical merit, not a political correctness merit, or it has no value
at all.  If renaming the branch to 'main' or 'trunk' makes it
easier
for people to reason about the branch setup then fine.  But if it's "to
address a past wrong that has absolutely no relation to the project"
it needs to be rethought.  And I'll go so far as to say that this
frivolous renaming occurring across the board is doing more harm than
good in the name of 'respecting the last few centuries', as it forces
people to highlight that aspect of history, and not move on as a
society.

A master branch is the source of truth.  It's where development
branches branch from, and where they inevitably merge back into.

Speaking only for myself here...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of
Justin
> Hibbits via llvm-dev
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:59 AM
> To: Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master`
> branch?
> 
> 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

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.