thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch? [Jun 2020]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Eric Christopher via llvm-dev

2020-Jun-19 18:50 UTC

[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

That's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the build bot
owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes the time
rather than the change :)

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 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/20200619/2de5a875/attachment.html>

Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev

2020-Jun-19 19:16 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

> On Jun 19, 2020, at 14:50, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> That's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the build
bot owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes the time
rather than the change :)
> 
How about setting a timeframe for any change, so there’s some warning/lead time
like the GitHub transition? Perhaps after the release is made would be a good
window.

-Matt

Eric Christopher via llvm-dev

2020-Jun-19 19:18 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

I think that waiting that long would be overboard. As soon as we can get a
name and coordinate the buildbots I would want to change.

I'll start working now on patches for blacklist removal to make sure
they're in well before the release.

-eric

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:16 PM Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2020, at 14:50, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > That's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the
build bot
> owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes the
time
> rather than the change :)
> >
>
> How about setting a timeframe for any change, so there’s some warning/lead
> time like the GitHub transition? Perhaps after the release is made would be
> a good window.
>
> -Matt-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/736bdbda/attachment.html>

Philip Reames via llvm-dev

2020-Jun-19 20:41 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

Can I suggest that we pick a day well in advance to make the changes, 
but leave the exact naming TBD?  This solves two problems.

  * If the broader community settles on a consensus of naming in the
    meantime, we follow.  This would ensure that we do eventually act if
    no consensus emerges, but gives us a chance to follow consensus if
    one does rapidly emerge.
  * Having a date picked give downstream folks time to plan and adjust.

I'll throw out July 15th as a reasonable date.

Philip

On 6/19/20 11:50 AM, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
wrote:> That's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the build 
> bot owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes 
> the time rather than the change :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Keane, Erich via llvm-dev 
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     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
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>     llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200619/0a5c09dd/attachment.html>

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

[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?

[llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch?