I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t make any difference. To some, such as potential members currently outside the community, it makes the project more welcoming.
Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a potential source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on. Julian > On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0]. > This is a topic that has come up regularly among D&I folks at the ASF. > The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git > branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm > suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community > as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public > roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change. > > I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone > has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I > personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to > contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think > making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20 > relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout > and I believe others have already made this change. > > I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially > make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to > us all :) > > [0] > http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/ > [1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63 > > -- > Michael Mior > mm...@apache.org
