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

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

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Fangrui Song via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> 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

I disagree with any attempt to "both sides" this issue. There's no
reason
to have done this.

-eric

>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200619/4c5347b3/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Fangrui Song via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>
>
> I disagree with any attempt to "both sides" this issue.
There's no reason
> to have done this.
>
>
To elaborate a bit: we should change the wording because it has been shown
to be more inclusive and does actually matter. To the rest of the
suggestions in the article: we should do those too. There's no reason to
put out a dichotomy here.

-eric

> -eric
>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200619/842a7fd7/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:16 PM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Fangrui Song via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>
>
> I disagree with any attempt to "both sides" this issue.
There's no reason
> to have done this.
>
The labelling of someone's input into some category does not strike me as
respectful.

>
> -eric
>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200619/83e35cc3/attachment.html>