Hi all, It seems that 'main' as an alternative to 'master' for git repos is getting used in various other places.
Best regards, David On Saturday, 13 June 2020, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will suggest to anyone looking for an alternative name to consider > "trunk" which is already widely used by other SCMs like our very own > Subversion. ;) > > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 13:57, Trevor Grant <trevor.d.gr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hey- > > > > So on Mahout, we decided per Rich's original thread on diversity@ on > > replacing whitelist/blacklist terminology, that if renaming our `master` > > branch to something else attracts just one more contributor it's worth > > it.[1] > > > > Also on diversity@ Naomi first brought up that `master` as in master > branch > > was actually a master record. (Daniel pointed this out). > > > > akm found a Twitter thread[2] which says basically what we were thinking > > (it's appear inclusive than be technically correct on word origin), > however > > the thread also referenced an email thread from GNOME when they were > having > > these discussions a couple of years ago[3] and the outcome was someone > did > > research into something called BitKeeper (which was before my time) but > > that was where the first master branch existed (GNOME email cited the > > commit that created it) and from their docs: > > > > > In this section we are going to show how to interact with the master > > repository and how to deal with merging and conflicts. For this demo, we > > will need to create a small program which we will then push to the > master > > repository. We are then going to modify the file on both the master and > > slave repository and then merge the work. > > > > So for our project- we had already decided to change the name of our > master > > branch. But I keep seeing the (reasonable, and what I had originally > > thought as well) idea that "master" is for "master record", which is > fairly > > demonstrably false. > > > > I was originally shown that tweet several days ago- and have since seen > > more and more of the open source community moving away from naming their > > main branch `master`, but as I see this continue to be a discussion, I > just > > wanted to drop something I had seen. Apologies for not doing it sooner- > (as > > you might have guessed) I've been spending more of my time in the streets > > this week than I have in code bases. > > > > As an aside- I don't think there should be ASF mandated guidance on this > > either, but I would like individual projects to make the decision for > > themselves from a place of what is the actual origin of "master" branch > > terminology. > > > > tg > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20403 > > [2] https://twitter.com/tobie/status/1270290278029631489 > > [3] > > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/ > 2019-May/msg00066.html > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 3:40 AM Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Context matters.. the context here is the branching model. Master in > the > > > context of git repositories is git terminology, just like what default > is > > > in the context of mercurial repositories or any other $default_branch > in > > > the context of $dvcs. This has nothing to do with master/slave > relationship > > > in the context of redundant systems or jenkins or what it meant around > 1850 > > > in America. > > > > > > A project may choose the most appropriate branching model at will if > this > > > is what the community wants and it does not violate against the code of > > > conduct. A short phrase in the project documentation like "master > refers > > > to the default branch and marks the latest stable release" or "this > project > > > uses gitflow branching model" may make this clear. Slave may be an > > > appropriate branch name, it depends on the context and its meaning if > it > > > adheres to CoC or not. > > > > > > Warm regards, > > > Dominik > > > > > > Ps: Pizza may not be an edible good in the context of Terry Pratchett > > > novels. ;-) > > > -- > > > Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find > > > them. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 07:11 Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Shall we make an addendum to CoC to reflect it as an official naming > > >> policy for our repos? As you know - they are up there on the github > and > > >> might negatively reflect on our public image...? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> With regards, > > >> Cos > > >> > > >> On 2020-06-10 03:46, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > >> > On 09/06/2020 22.41, sebb wrote: > > >> >> It's obvious that master/slave is problematic. > > >> >> > > >> >> However is 'master' problematic when used on its own? > > >> >> > > >> >> e.g. master Git branch ? > > >> > > > >> > As mentioned elsewhere (on dev@diversity I think), the general > > >> consensus > > >> > is that 'git master' refers to a master record, not a master in the > > >> > sense of an actor. There is no 'slave' branch (well, not in most > > >> > repositories I've seen), so I would think that drawing a connection > to > > >> > master/slave here is more of a willful determination to see problems > > >> > that don't exist. > > >> > > > >> > What is problematic to me is not the word 'master' or the word > 'slave', > > >> > but rather the use of both within the same system. > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> Sebb > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >
