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

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 15:35 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
> Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > >
<snip>
> > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
> > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the
> > one
> > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
> > "master/slave" relationship.
> >
> > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short,
> > "master
> > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it
> > were "slave copies".
>
> This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of
> logic for me. I can get on board with that.
>
> Beyond just that logic, however, are there organisations who hold the
> same opinion? Affected people who do? That would be immensely
> valuable
> as rationale for making the change, beside this somewhat semantic
> argument.

I've quoted a few individuals who made this change in the original
mail, but I don't have more information here.

> > > 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".
> >
> > Because you think that it would be just the organisations being
> > smeared? Or that they would just be smeared? Sorry, I'm not
> > courageous
> > (or foolish) enough to even attempt that.
>
> Maybe I'm misinterpreting. You said that doing this upstream would
> result in people being mad. I asserted that it's going to result in
> people being mad one way or another. I did not mean or imply anything
> other than that, and do not see how this statement can be interpreted
> otherwise.

It's mostly about the size and reach of the people "being mad", and the
target audience. When GNOME adopts a full code of conduct for online
behaviour (our current one is only for events), I don't expect it to
cause the same sort of response from the wider community as when the
Linux kernel did. Or when Python removed the "master/slave" terms from
its code base.

> In any case, thank you, you've convinced me. I stand by most of what
> I've said, but I can kind of see the connection to the practice of
> slavery more clearly.
>
> If the change can be done transparently (i.e., nobody needs to lift a
> finger, as said in the thread), I don't have any strong objections
> against the change. Otherwise I'd urge to balance the gains against
> the
> pains.