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

[Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>]

On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 12:09:11PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:46 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to formally propose as a GNOME Goal that GNOME modules
> > replace references to the terms "master" and "slave". [...] The scope
> > would be to replace occurrences of the terms appearing [...] git
> > repositories
>
> I don't think it makes sense to carry on the unfocused discussion in
> the original thread to talk about:
> Replacing "master" reference in git branches
> as the subject line says.

That such a change (git branch name) is needed has been questioned
various times. The response to that has been underwhelming. There's no
clear explanation.

Elsewhere you said the git master name is different from master/slave
naming in general. Yet the master/slave is used as a prime example that
git master should be renamed. This is not consistent.

> - Why?
[..]
> 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.

You seem to suggest to just do it (sole master reference), instead of
determining why. If so, that's what loads of people have objected to.

> - How?

In practice this will mean master will still be around, used and visible
in the UI+git. For the UI (gitlab) maybe a hack can be added… but that
still will leave it around. Therefore the "How?" is not a "how" IMO,
instead of one master branch there will be two names for the same thing.

> - 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].

So no attempt was made, just assumptions about how it would be
perceived? It feels like a limited number of people trying to force this
through to a huge group (like GNOME3! j/k).

> - And to what?
>
> A few possible names were mentioned/used. "mainline" was thought to
[..]

One module was already changed though. First things broke, then
eventually it worked again, though then showing "master" again. It
doesn't come across as a thought out change.

> - Next steps
>
> The GNOME community needs to decide whether this change can be done.
>
> Most of the original thread was specifically about the git branch name
> change, and changing lone "master" references is where most of the
> opposition was.
>
> I expect Michael to send a recap mail about "master/slave" references
> in the original thread shortly.

For master/slave there seem to be consensus to not use such phrasings.
For master alone (e.g. git) there seem to be a near consensus against
changing it, all IMO.

-- 
Regards,
Olav