Makes sense, I'm happy to monitor the situation and revisit the discussion in the coming weeks.
FTR, the whitelist/blacklist language was resolved yesterday in https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7484. Neal On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:01 AM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > GitHub is apparently looking into it as well: >> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955 > > Yep, it seems like a few places are, that is why I think we should delay > any branch renaming until bigger providers can come to a consensus, I don't > want to have to make this change twice. > > >> FWIW when you clone (from GitHub at least), you get the default branch, >> whether it is named "master" or not. > > I'm not sure this covers all access paths. Given the concern on the > linked thread from git-core, I really think we should wait until there is > consensus and the core git developers/providers can come to a consensus. > > >> Yes, and there are some reasonable arguments in there for why "main" is a >> better choice than other alternatives. I was surprised how little >> bikeshedding there was. > > There was also at least one linked thread about how "main" is problematic > in non-english speaking languages. I'd prefer to let others bikeshed the > naming for us :) > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Neal Richardson < > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for the discussion, folks. I'm curious to hear what others think >> as well. >> >> Some responses inline. >> >> Neal >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:24 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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/ >> >> >> Yes, and there are some reasonable arguments in there for why "main" is a >> better choice than other alternatives. I was surprised how little >> bikeshedding there was. >> >> >>> >>> > >>> > 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. >> >> >> GitHub is apparently looking into it as well: >> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955 >> >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> "default_branch" is already an attribute of "repository" objects in >> GitHub API responses >> >> >>> >> >>> >> 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). >>> >> >> FWIW when you clone (from GitHub at least), you get the default branch, >> whether it is named "master" or not. >> >> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>
