Am Mittwoch, dem 12.02.2025 um 14:36 +0100 schrieb Ekaitz Zarraga: > (this doesn't mean I'm not sensible about the problem or anything > like that, I'm just trying to point out this all comes from a > movement from a political situation that is not universal) As does the free software movement.
> Not all uses of master have an elitist background (some are also > misogynistic :) ), but that's not the reason why we are discussing > this. Fair enough, I should have said discriminatory to catch all meanings. > > But I don't feel like I should remove the word. I feel like I should > remove the people that are masters. And then what? > > I think this is just a matter of image, and I'm not sure about who > are we trying to please with the change. Since I was the one to initially make this suggestion: myself, plus whoever agrees with me, regardless of their reason. > What I'm trying is to think rationally about it and try to avoid some > possible harm (I have had misunderstanding with other project's > branching scheme, specially with some that have many branches, in > guile it has happened to me... I think the master branch is still > there but very old). What possible harm do you intend to avoid by *keeping* the old name? > What I think in this specific case is all started with good > intentions but somebody got a little bit too far[…] I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this paragraph does read like concern trolling to me. We are used to working with branches, switching the main branch should not cause that much of an overhead. > What I mean here is we should choose our way to do things, and not > necessarily copy whatever political/social/anything situation that > happens in one specific country, because that's a little bit > condescending with the rest of the world. If we are talking about > inclusion, that also matters. Keeping a ten years old default doesn't really sound like "choosing our way" to me. The "one specific country" argument is kinda weak too. I count myself to the rest of the world — though admittedly still the imperial core — and I think other proponents for this change do as well. As a gesture towards inclusion, the change is probably symbolic at best, but not even doing that for dubious reasons will leave us in the past indefinitely. > > Practically speaking, the move to Codeberg would make the rename > EASIER and also avoid some of the possible harm as it would be more > obvious to see the default branch in the web interface of the > repository. > > So if we do the change, I'd prefer if we have made the move to > Codeberg already. Non sequitur. If Codeberg makes seeing the default branch that obvious, changing it at once should not matter. Cheers
