On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:51 PM Erik Faye-Lund <erik.faye-l...@collabora.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 12:48 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:42 PM Erik Faye-Lund > > <erik.faye-l...@collabora.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 10:30 -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > > > All, > > > > > > > > I'm sure by now you've all seen the articles, LKML mails, and > > > > other > > > > chatter around inclusive language in software. While mesa > > > > doesn't > > > > provide a whole lot of documentation (hah!), we do have a > > > > website, a > > > > code-base, and a git repo and this is something that we, as a > > > > project > > > > should consider. > > > > > > > > What I'm proposing today is simply re-naming the primary Git > > > > branch > > > > from "master" to "main". Why "main"? Because that's what GitHub > > > > has > > > > chosen "main" as their new default branch name and so it sounds > > > > to me > > > > like the most likely new default. > > > > > > > > As far as impact on the project goes, if and when we rename the > > > > primary branch, the old "master" branch will be locked (no > > > > pushing/merging allowed) and all MRs will have to be re-targeted > > > > against the new branch. Fortunately, that's very easy to > > > > do. You > > > > just edit the MR and there's a little drop-down box at the top > > > > for > > > > which branch it targets. I just tested this with one of mine and > > > > it > > > > seems to work ok. > > > > > > > > As far as other bits of language in the code-base, I'm happy to > > > > see > > > > those cleaned up as people have opportunity. I'm not aware of > > > > any > > > > particularly egregious offenders. However, changing the name of > > > > the > > > > primary branch is something which will cause a brief hiccup in > > > > people's development process and so warrants broader discussion. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > I'm all for renaming it, but I'm a bit worried about doing it in a > > > way > > > where we don't break all merge-requests... > > > > > > As far as I know, GitLab doesn't allow changing the target-branch > > > of a > > > merge-request, so all pending merge-requests would all of a sudden > > > point to the wrong branch. > > > > No and yes. It doesn't have any way to mass-edit merge requests to > > re-target them. (It does have a mass-edit tool but it doesn't > > support > > that). However, it does support re-targetting individual merge > > requests. I even gave instructions for doing so in my first e-mail. > > :-) > > > > Thanks for pointing that out, I feel kinda stupid now. I was looking > for that feature in the past, and couldn't find it, but surely there it > is!
No worries. I was 100% sure it wasn't there too until I looked for it today. Maybe it was added recently? > I guess I should have read more carefully. Updating every merge request > manually should be a totally OK compromise IMO. Cool. --Jason _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
