sorry for the multiple posts ... I will also note that there is a lot of debate on this change on the linked thread as well (and I'm not sure the actual change will happen soon).
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:19 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW Discussion on git core on naming [1], seems like it might be > coalescing around "main". > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200615205722.GG71506@syl.local/ > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:27 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'm in favor of trying to align on neutral language within the codebase. >> >> On branch naming, I think we should wait a little to see if a consensus >> converges on a new naming convention at least within Git/Github. On a >> technical level, I'm not sure if automated tooling (e.g. crawlers) outside >> of the project might make assumptions about default branch names or what >> is available in the github API for this type of metadata retrieval. >> >> Thanks, >> Micah >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:48 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:33 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Le 18/06/2020 à 21:56, Neal Richardson a écrit : >>> > > Hi all, >>> > > As you're likely aware, there's growing momentum in the developer >>> community >>> > > to drop terminology that some find offensive. >>> > >>> > Yes. Is it reasonable? Does it achieve anything? Is there any sense >>> > in trying to "drop terminology that some find offensive"? >>> >>> We wish to create a community that is open and as inclusive and >>> welcoming as possible. So yes, IMHO if there is something that some >>> people might find offensive (even if it is not intended that way), >>> then there is value in removing that possibility from the equation. >>> We're here to build a healthy community that builds software together >>> and so respecting the perspectives of others (even if we disagree with >>> them) is a part of having a healthy community. >>> >>> > > >>> > As a project that takes pride >>> > > in being welcoming and inclusive, I think this is something we >>> should get >>> > > in front of--particularly as we're approaching a 1.0 release. >>> > >>> > I don't think we would get "in front of". We would just be following >>> > the "growing momentum". In other words, we would do something because >>> > it's popular. >>> >>> Repeating sentiments from my response a few minutes ago, I think it is >>> better for us to avoid even the possibility of these concerns arising >>> in this project. Let us spend our energy debating technical issues >>> rather than social or political ones. >>> >>> > (I'll note that the urge to follow the "growing momentum" is how the >>> > developer community standardised on irritating tools like Git) >>> > >>> > In the long term, and in the face of the problems that it claims to >>> > address, this seems futile to me. But it makes some people feel good >>> > about doing something, and it's (small) PR for the project... >>> > >>> > Now to the specifics: >>> > >>> > > Specifically, I am proposing to: >>> > > >>> > > 1. rename the "master" branch to something else ("main" seems to be >>> > > popular; other version control systems use other words too). >>> > >>> > I used Mercurial before Git, and Mercurial uses "default". I used SVN >>> > before Mercurial, and SVN uses "trunk". I don't remember if CVS is >>> > sophisticated enough to have any name for this concept :-) >>> > >>> > The problem, though, is that "master" is the overwhelming convention in >>> > Git land. Well-known conventions make a better user experience (you >>> > clone a git repo, you get the "master" branch and you know it: done). >>> > >>> > If we choose a non-"master" name, we add an additional hoop to jump >>> > through for users to approach Arrow. It's a small thing, but usability >>> > is often about such small things. >>> >>> I'm not concerned about this, given that Arrow is already on the >>> sophisticated end of the spectrum for open source projects. >>> >>> > > 2. replace "whitelist"/"blacklist" in our code with something like >>> > > "allowlist"/"blocklist", or otherwise renaming. >>> > >>> > "allow"/"deny" sounds terser, and also seems more symmetric to me. >>> > Also, be careful: "block" is very close, unsafely close, to "black"... >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > >>> > Antoine. >>> >>
