Hi All, I'm a black data scientist. For whatever it's worth, I have never taken offense to the term "Master" branch, as I have never interpreted it to have a derogatory connotation. It's literally never crossed my mind.
That said, I certainly appreciate the sentiment, and the spirit of the discussion. It's nice to know people are looking for opportunities to move us in the right direction. I have no investment in the outcome either way. Just my $.02. On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:27 AM Neal Richardson < neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >> >
