I will suggest to anyone looking for an alternative name to consider "trunk" which is already widely used by other SCMs like our very own Subversion. ;)
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 13:57, Trevor Grant <trevor.d.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey- > > So on Mahout, we decided per Rich's original thread on diversity@ on > replacing whitelist/blacklist terminology, that if renaming our `master` > branch to something else attracts just one more contributor it's worth > it.[1] > > Also on diversity@ Naomi first brought up that `master` as in master branch > was actually a master record. (Daniel pointed this out). > > akm found a Twitter thread[2] which says basically what we were thinking > (it's appear inclusive than be technically correct on word origin), however > the thread also referenced an email thread from GNOME when they were having > these discussions a couple of years ago[3] and the outcome was someone did > research into something called BitKeeper (which was before my time) but > that was where the first master branch existed (GNOME email cited the > commit that created it) and from their docs: > > > In this section we are going to show how to interact with the master > repository and how to deal with merging and conflicts. For this demo, we > will need to create a small program which we will then push to the master > repository. We are then going to modify the file on both the master and > slave repository and then merge the work. > > So for our project- we had already decided to change the name of our master > branch. But I keep seeing the (reasonable, and what I had originally > thought as well) idea that "master" is for "master record", which is fairly > demonstrably false. > > I was originally shown that tweet several days ago- and have since seen > more and more of the open source community moving away from naming their > main branch `master`, but as I see this continue to be a discussion, I just > wanted to drop something I had seen. Apologies for not doing it sooner- (as > you might have guessed) I've been spending more of my time in the streets > this week than I have in code bases. > > As an aside- I don't think there should be ASF mandated guidance on this > either, but I would like individual projects to make the decision for > themselves from a place of what is the actual origin of "master" branch > terminology. > > tg > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20403 > [2] https://twitter.com/tobie/status/1270290278029631489 > [3] > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 3:40 AM Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Context matters.. the context here is the branching model. Master in the > > context of git repositories is git terminology, just like what default is > > in the context of mercurial repositories or any other $default_branch in > > the context of $dvcs. This has nothing to do with master/slave relationship > > in the context of redundant systems or jenkins or what it meant around 1850 > > in America. > > > > A project may choose the most appropriate branching model at will if this > > is what the community wants and it does not violate against the code of > > conduct. A short phrase in the project documentation like "master refers > > to the default branch and marks the latest stable release" or "this project > > uses gitflow branching model" may make this clear. Slave may be an > > appropriate branch name, it depends on the context and its meaning if it > > adheres to CoC or not. > > > > Warm regards, > > Dominik > > > > Ps: Pizza may not be an edible good in the context of Terry Pratchett > > novels. ;-) > > -- > > Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find > > them. > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 07:11 Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Shall we make an addendum to CoC to reflect it as an official naming > >> policy for our repos? As you know - they are up there on the github and > >> might negatively reflect on our public image...? > >> > >> -- > >> With regards, > >> Cos > >> > >> On 2020-06-10 03:46, Daniel Gruno wrote: > >> > On 09/06/2020 22.41, sebb wrote: > >> >> It's obvious that master/slave is problematic. > >> >> > >> >> However is 'master' problematic when used on its own? > >> >> > >> >> e.g. master Git branch ? > >> > > >> > As mentioned elsewhere (on dev@diversity I think), the general > >> consensus > >> > is that 'git master' refers to a master record, not a master in the > >> > sense of an actor. There is no 'slave' branch (well, not in most > >> > repositories I've seen), so I would think that drawing a connection to > >> > master/slave here is more of a willful determination to see problems > >> > that don't exist. > >> > > >> > What is problematic to me is not the word 'master' or the word 'slave', > >> > but rather the use of both within the same system. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Sebb > >> >> > >> > > >> > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: diversity-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: diversity-h...@apache.org
