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

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/ee6e2afd/attachment.html>

On 19/06/2020 10:48, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote:
> 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".
I never got around to updating it in my brain, so still call it trunk. 
I would be very happy to see reality updated to reflect my mental model.

David

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:49 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 as it can hurt some contributors, 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", ...
While we're at it, I strongly urge to also deal with the words
"work"/"job".

As one can easily fact-check, in Russian (slavic?) language,
for example, the word "Worker" can be translated as
"Работник", "Рабочий".
Similarly the word "Job" can be translated as "Работа".
As you may notice, they all contain "Раб", which, as you can easily
check, literally translates to "slave".
It doesn't seem very inclusive to me to use words with such dubious origin..
> 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
Roman.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

Speaking entirely personally here as I've not had a chance to discuss this
with anyone else at Sony yet.

Our internal CI jobs still refer to trunk and anecdotally I still hear
trunk and master being used interchangeably so I don't think going back to
trunk would cause any great churn at this end. I'm in favour.

I'd imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to keep the trunk and master
branches in sync for some transition period. I'm not sure if git symbolic
references would be feasible, otherwise we could create trunk from master,
restrict pushes to master and run a bot to just keep fast forwarding it to
match trunk. That way although committers would have to change to pushing
to trunk, bots could have a longer transition period with read-only access
from master.

In terms of blacklist/whitelist it's never a thing that had occurred to me
until reading recent discussions but I'd be in favour of recommending
denylist/allowlist as preferable alternatives in future.

-Greg



On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:55, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 19/06/2020 10:48, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote:
> > 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".
>
> I never got around to updating it in my brain, so still call it trunk.
> I would be very happy to see reality updated to reflect my mental model.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200619/0a043cc3/attachment.html>

+1

Language shapes how we observe reality, so this is right step to do.

Best regards,
Kai

On 19.06.2020 11:48, 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
>

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 5:49 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 as it can hurt some contributors, 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", ...
+1, I would be happy with any of these, but "trunk" is terminology
I'm
already used to using from SVN and feels most natural to me.
> 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.
Also +1. FWIW, a while back I set up a herald rule to subscribe me to
any code review using those terms and I've been quietly suggesting
improved wording (because there's always a clear construct to use
instead) and authors have been great at making changes when I point
them out. Having more eyeballs on this would be a good thing!

~Aaron

>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On 19/06/2020 10:50, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote:
> 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", ...
> 
If possible could you please avoid using the name "trunk". At Arm we
already use
the trunk branch in our downstream repository, so we would have to rename 
"trunk" to something else and that would actually require more effort
than
renaming the master branch.

-- 
Regards,
    Mikhail Maltsev

+1 for main or trunk + main seems to be what most git projects move
towards, but I have no strong opinions on the new name (just strong
opinions about not using master).

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 11:49 Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/576e7f15/attachment.html>

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:49, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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.
Hi Mehdi,

I never associated any of those words with their negative
connotations, either, but this is because of my upbringing and some of
the privileges I enjoy from our broken society.

I always associated the word "master" as reverential, like with
martial arts, Jedi kind of thing. And to me, "white" and
"black" (on
list, hat) had to do with day and night (when the monsters come out).

But I'm also painfully aware that small amends to our mental model
could improve the lives of many people. Every little bit counts.

I did read around for all of the reasons to change all the names, and
all the reasons not to. Turns out, the reasons to change are that a
lot of people go through repeated pains throughout their lives for
generations and every little bit helps. The reasons not to change were
that "people are used to". I think that's clear enough for me.
> 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", ...
Funny enough, git doesn't care what you call your branches. Better
still, Github has a setting to name your main branch.

I personally dislike "trunk". I'd prefer "main" because
that's where
all commits go. "dev" would make people think that's not the
official
place to look at.
> Since I'm on this topic, we should also likely look into the pervasive
use of whitelist/blacklist in the project.
As long as the new names are clear, it should be fine. Maybe we could
have a "dictionary" to refer to the terms we use to replace old ones.

I'd also strongly advise against worrying about translations. As a
multilingual speaker, I notice funny words in many languages, either
by spelling or by sound, and it's impossible to avoid all similarities
with all languages of the world. Particularly to the times we live in,
the N-word is the "right" word to use in Brazil, while
"black" is
extremely offensive. For example, one would translate "blacklist" into
"lista negra" to be culturally correct. Culture is beautiful because
it's different, and we should all embrace differences. Without it, we
wouldn't be human.

We could use non-English words that are more restricted in meanings,
like "libre" is used for a specific meaning of "free". But
worrying
about spelling or sound in hundreds of different languages for every
word we use would never end. Worst still would be worrying about
Spanish and French, but not for example, about Vietnamese or Afrikans.

cheers,
--renato

On 6/19/20 6:31 AM, Mikhail Maltsev via llvm-dev wrote:
> On 19/06/2020 10:50, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>> 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", ...
>>
> If possible could you please avoid using the name "trunk". At Arm
we already use
> the trunk branch in our downstream repository, so we would have to rename
> "trunk" to something else and that would actually require more
effort than
> renaming the master branch.

I like "dev" as an option here. It's short, and in addition,
conveys the
fact that the development happens in that branch. "main" in fine too, 
although it doesn't have has much semantic benefit.

  -Hal

>
-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

Hi Mehdi,

I completely agree and this has been raised in other forums as well.  GitHub is
planning to change the default name of the ‘master’ branch for new repos - I
think we should wait to see what they move to, so we can decide whether its
makes sense to align with that.

-Chris
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 2:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/e36b31b6/attachment.html>

+1 to everything here. I was writing up a similar proposal this morning.



On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 4:19 AM Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 5:49 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 as it can hurt some contributors, 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", ...
>
> +1, I would be happy with any of these, but "trunk" is
terminology I'm
> already used to using from SVN and feels most natural to me.
>
> > 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.
>
> Also +1. FWIW, a while back I set up a herald rule to subscribe me to
> any code review using those terms and I've been quietly suggesting
> improved wording (because there's always a clear construct to use
> instead) and authors have been great at making changes when I point
> them out. Having more eyeballs on this would be a good thing!
>
> ~Aaron
>
>
> >
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/7c5bb69b/attachment.html>

Mehdi,

Thank you so much for bringing his up. Personally, I agree with many points you
have brought up and I appreciate you taking the time to write this email to the
community.

Just an FYI, but Mike Edwards is talking to Galina and folks about the “cost” of
the technical changes to bots/CI and should have something to share about that
soon. This information could be helpful when making a decision.

Thanks,
Tanya
> On Jun 19, 2020, at 2:48 AM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/dae6f7d5/attachment.html>

+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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/782698ef/attachment.html>

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>

Just to add another option - Mercurial uses "default". Pretty neutral,
as
for me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/06f8be30/attachment.html>

Speaking personally here:

+1
to change the name of the master branch, probably to trunk, main or
whatever appropriate name git/github changed it to by default. This is the
least we can do.



On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 5:49 AM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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
>

-- 
------
----------
Masoud Ataei (Mr.)
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mataeija
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/fbb9a05a/attachment.html>

On 19/06/2020 12:56, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
> I never associated any of those words with their negative
> connotations, either, but this is because of my upbringing and some of
> the privileges I enjoy from our broken society.
> 
> I always associated the word "master" as reverential, like with
> martial arts, Jedi kind of thing. And to me, "white" and
"black" (on
> list, hat) had to do with day and night (when the monsters come out).
> 
> But I'm also painfully aware that small amends to our mental model
> could improve the lives of many people. Every little bit counts.
AOL.

As an *English* speaker (as in "not American"), I also see
"master" as -
not exactly reverential - but as a leader (or a youngster - the 
diminutive of Mister).

And reading the link against it, almost the first post I read was an 
African American saying that a lot of this was totally irrelevant to 
him, and was a lot of white people speaking on his behalf without 
actually bothering to ask him what *he* wanted.

If changing terminology makes things clearer (and I think it does here, 
especially for non-native speakers), then I'm all for it, but not just 
because the Americans are trying to solve their political angst.

ALL words have overtones, and all the variations of 
English/American/Strine/Pidgin/Whatever-else-I-can't-name make life very 
difficult. I was never able to participate properly when the subject of 
race came up on Groklaw - "black" was seen as an offensive and banned 
word, and of course I can't use the phrase "African American". The
equivalent here if I said "African Brit" stinks of an accusation of
"you
traitor!" They're not Africans, they're Caribbeans or Nigerians, or
or
or. And many Africans are White South Africans, and some Caribbeans 
(like me) are also white.

How many people here remember Michael Portillo's "Cricket Test"
for
whether you are English (the joke here being *he* was of Spanish descent).

So please do things for sound *technical* reasons, and sod the 
Politically Correct. That's usually an excuse for oppression by the 
Morally Superior.

Cheers,
Wol

Hi,

I am more confused than anything else.
There are whole areas of data design and management called "Master
Data Management".
In financial statements there is the expression "In the black" meaning
a good positive figure in the balance sheet, and "in the red" and a
bad negative figure.
So, for the confused people like me, I would prefer someone to come up
with a list of words (and in what context) that are offensive, and
then we can easily avoid them in future. I am sure, like me, that none
of us wish or have ever wished to use offensive words.
I get the feeling that people are having to guess at the moment, Is
"xyz" offensive?

Kind Regards

James








On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:49, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 as it can hurt some contributors, 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

This is probably a good start as a place to learn:

https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation

You should be able to find language there than can help you move forward.
If you have any specific questions or concerns feel free to approach me.

-eric

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:32 PM James Courtier-Dutton via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am more confused than anything else.
> There are whole areas of data design and management called "Master
> Data Management".
> In financial statements there is the expression "In the black"
meaning
> a good positive figure in the balance sheet, and "in the red" and
a
> bad negative figure.
> So, for the confused people like me, I would prefer someone to come up
> with a list of words (and in what context) that are offensive, and
> then we can easily avoid them in future. I am sure, like me, that none
> of us wish or have ever wished to use offensive words.
> I get the feeling that people are having to guess at the moment, Is
> "xyz" offensive?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:49, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 as it can hurt some contributors, 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200620/adb413f4/attachment.html>

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:31 PM James Courtier-Dutton <
james.dutton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am more confused than anything else.
> There are whole areas of data design and management called "Master
> Data Management".
> In financial statements there is the expression "In the black"
meaning
> a good positive figure in the balance sheet,

I'm glad to hear that there are positive uses of the word "black"!


> and "in the red" and a
> bad negative figure.
> So, for the confused people like me, I would prefer someone to come up
> with a list of words (and in what context) that are offensive, and
> then we can easily avoid them in future.

It is hard to have an exhaustive list, but I'm sure we can come up with a
list of resources to link to from our docs (coding standards for example),
I pointed to IETF doc
<https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html#rfc.section.1.1>
in
the original post, Google also has a doc on Writing inclusive documentation
<https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation>,


> I am sure, like me, that none
> of us wish or have ever wished to use offensive words.
> I get the feeling that people are having to guess at the moment, Is
> "xyz" offensive?
>
I am fairly confident that "xyz" is OK :)

Best,

-- 
Mehdi


>
> Kind Regards
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:49, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 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 as it can hurt some contributors, 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200620/9f9ba3c4/attachment.html>

On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 02:48 -0700, 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 as it can hurt some contributors, 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", ...
Please not "dev" (we use "dev" as our local downstream
development
branch).

/Mikael