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

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.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:38:02 +0100
Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
This is a reason I can support... least surprise, consistent with other
projects on the platform.  However I may disagree with the reasoning
behind GitHub's changing (which reeks of arrogance on their part),
maintaining consistency of this project for users of other projects on
the platform is respectable and acceptable.

- Justin

On 2020-06-19, Justin Hibbits via llvm-dev wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:38:02 +0100
>Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>This is a reason I can support... least surprise, consistent with other
>projects on the platform.  However I may disagree with the reasoning
>behind GitHub's changing (which reeks of arrogance on their part),
>maintaining consistency of this project for users of other projects on
>the platform is respectable and acceptable.
>
>- Justin
I agree that we should just wait for Github.

* Paul Robinson
>> 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
+1 for dev
+1 for trunk



The majority of people replying here seem to in favor of migrating off
from 'master'. I still wanted to share the origin of 'master
copy' and an
opinion from the other side

http://antirez.com/news/122