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. >> >
