Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 12:09 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
- Why?

For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references.
Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the
"gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation, and
some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change.

Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps
being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments are
being made as to _why_ this is.

Specifically, this question needs an answer:

Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged
term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors?

Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally
tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery?

It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to
the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot
personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in

Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about
managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable

I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up
"master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we
don't need any more comments about whether the negative connotations of
"master" alone don't apply in your language or culture.

I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references
where it is the case.

I can appreciate this sentiment (I've been asking for the exact same
thing the entire time), but this line of reasoning doesn't really hold:
The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary
should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me.

I suppose what that paragraph should have said is that the opinions of
those negatively affected are prioritised, owing to the simple fact
that they are negatively affected. That makes more sense to me.

- Why not in git directly?

Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this in a
welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline comments
made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go down
about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6].

I still believe that this would be a valuable endeavour if the premise
is true. Maybe I'm naive, but if the premise is true and the word
"master" negatively affects people, then doing this upstream would
beneficially impact more people than if this were done just in GNOME.

It would also reduce the pain of breaking a default.

The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only difference
would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet
comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it".

With kindness,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]