similar to: Renaming The Default Branch

I notice that on https://github.com/github/renaming it says: """If you haven’t renamed your default branch yet, consider waiting until later this year <https://github.com/github/renaming#later-this-year>. We’re investing in tools to make renaming the default branch of an existing repository a seamless experience for both maintainers and contributors.""" Is

I'm very supportive of this switch, but I do think that the timing leaves a bit to be desired. Many people will be taking time off for the holidays at the end of the year, and forcing a change to be complete by week 1 of the new year (since January 7 is part of our first work-week in 2021), might make things more difficult than they should be. This is also problematic because lots of

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:00 PM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > This timing actually is likely to be more convenient for my downstreams, > as most of the devs will be away.That way we can ‘ease’ into our transition > with a limited number of devs being affected by it… > > > > That said, from a downstream-perspective, it looks like we’ll still be >

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > Ah, I see what you mean. I would have no problem with January 7th being > pushed back a while if that helps out your transition. Would that be > possible Mike? > The main reason for holding such a tight schedule is we do not want this to drag on forever. I will freely admit, in my zeal to get

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 4:53 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I notice that on https://github.com/github/renaming it says: > > """If you haven’t renamed your default branch yet, consider waiting until later > this year <https://github.com/github/renaming#later-this-year>. We’re > investing in tools to make renaming the

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 10:55, Mike Edwards via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> > wrote: > >> Ah, I see what you mean. I would have no problem with January 7th being >> pushed back a while if that helps out your transition. Would that be >> possible Mike? >> >

Stephen, does that help you out? From: Mike Edwards <mike at sqlby.me> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:55 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: Stephen Hines <srhines at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang developer list <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Renaming

Hi Everyone, Many tech communities, including GitHub <https://github.com/github/renaming> and Git <https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/>, have moved away from term “master branch” and replaced it with “main branch” in an effort to remove unnecessary references to slavery and use more inclusive terms. This was also discussed on the LLVM-dev mailing list

This timing actually is likely to be more convenient for my downstreams, as most of the devs will be away.That way we can ‘ease’ into our transition with a limited number of devs being affected by it… That said, from a downstream-perspective, it looks like we’ll still be keeping ‘master’ updated for a while, right? > We will lock the master branch and change it to be readonly (with the

Ah, I see what you mean. I would have no problem with January 7th being pushed back a while if that helps out your transition. Would that be possible Mike? From: Stephen Hines <srhines at google.com> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 6:03 PM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang

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

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 02:00, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > If the bar for removal / renaming is "Use of X is offensive", or "Use of X is clearly impacting contributors or potential contributors" then I'm all for it. If the bar is "Nobody has actually complained, but X could be mistaken for something offensive" that seems

> I think it might be good to draw a clearer line between the > contributor and their organization. I suspect Apple's infrastructure > will be far more affected by the change than I will personally and > there's not really a way to fit that information into the current > survey. > > Tim. Excellent point. Sony's infrastructure pain would be significant to those

Hi Mehdi! I think the value to upstream (of doing mass reformatting in fewer commits) has to do with the intrusion of nonfunctional commits into `git blame` kinds of research. Every line that someone touches for a formatting reason necessarily obscures the history of functional changes in that block of code. The fewer of those that people have to work around, the better. I admit this is a

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

Hello, is it possible to rename the default groups with groupmap? I would like to change Domain Users Domain Admins Domain Guests to the correct German translation. Thanks Florian

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,

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")

We shift computers around a lot, and therefore need to rename several whenever we get new batches of systems in. Tried simply renaming a system while on the domain, but got an "access denied" error. I WAS able to disjoin the domain, remove the LDAP entry for the computer, log in as a local administrator, rename the computer, and rejoin the domain a different computer name. However,

Hi Philip, I think you might be reading more into the suggestion/discussion than is actually there. * I do not want upstream developers "trying to be polite" if that delays otherwise worthwhile work. Nobody suggested that. It’s perfectly possible to “be polite” and still not delay worthwhile work. * The current policy is "downstream is on their own". Nobody