Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
Bastien Nocera wrote: > I haven't looked at library-web because I have a whole bunch of work > that I'd need to do with it, but not the bandwidth... I pushed an untested minimal change. Fred ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:00 AM Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Doing some thread grave digging. Just as an FYI - in terms of happening - I see it very likely that github and gitlab are all going to be changing the name of the default branch in git. (I talked to Nuritzi - and she said discussions have already started and it is very likely that Gitlab will follow suit if not assured) At that point, I don't see why upstream git wouldn't follow suit as the pressure will mount. While I personally find it unfortunate that we didn't have the opportunity to lead on the issue - we certainly can lead in implementation. I did find the thread educational at least in terms of the meanings of 'master' and its origins. Thanks Bastien for leading the discussions on this. Cheers, sri > > On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 15:18 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list > > wrote: > > > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master > > > > > > Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but > > > not > > > in the context of master copy > > > > > > "an original version of something from which copies can be made:" > > > .. > > > > > > this has no connection with slavery at all. > > > > Reference needed. You don't know where it comes from, and you're not > > even trying to find where "master copy" takes its name from. > > > > > Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection > > > to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually > > > disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master". > > > > First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]: > > https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9 > > > > Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses > > "master" for its main branch: > > http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_on_top_of_a_different_changeset > > > > But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"? > > See the documentation about > > master/slave repositories: > > https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 > > > > But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper: > > https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2 > > > > So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy" > > reference, but a straight up master/slave reference. > > > > Did I get anything wrong there? > > A year later, and it turns out I was wrong, but still on the right > path. The email I'm replying to has been quoted in various online > discussions so I thought it would be best for me to update and correct > those statements, if they were ever to be used as references. > > I emailed Linus Torvalds recently (the original author of git, though > very quickly not the main developer), and he told me that it was > unlikely that the "git master" branch name was influenced by BitKeeper, > and that "master" was "fairly standard naming" for this sort of thing > and "more likely to be influenced by the CVS master repository". > > Petr Baudis is apparently the person that came up with the use of > "master" and "origin" in git, > https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577: > " > I picked the names "master" (and "origin") in the early Git tooling > back in 2005. [...] I have wished many times I would have named them > "main" (and "upstream") instead. > " > and https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441: > " > "master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the > original, but viewed from the production process perspective. > " > > I wanted to conclude that, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter > where the name comes from (something that was touched upon a number of > times in the thread). The fact that it has bad connotations, or > inspires dread for individuals and whole communities, is reason enough > to change it. > > It's especially the case when the term used is pretty inappropriate to > describe what it is, and the software is flexible enough that we can > very easily change that term without a lot of disruption. > > I think that we would do well as a project to make that change for all > the repositories that we host, so we minimise that differences in our > own project. > > If anyone wants some inspiration as to what they can do for their > personal projects, codespell can help you follow best practices using > the "usage" dictionary: > https://twitter.com/hadessuk/status/1271371994672566273 > which will be available as a Fedora update soon: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-12bd755a7c > > There are also tools to rename the main branch in your GitHub projects, > ahead of GitHub doing that by default: > https://github.com/dfm/rename-github-default-branch > > Cheers > > > [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch: > > https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243ff86bae740b
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 21:13 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote: > Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - How? > > > > It is possible to rename the "master" branch in git. It's also > > possible > > to add a "link" of sorts so that software that specifically > > references > > "master" can be made to work with the new name[5]. > > I checked and there is an hardcoded reference (git) master (branch) > in > library-web; while other GNOME changes did destroy much of library- > web > (meson without alternative way to get gtk-doc HTML files), it would > still be nice to have the compatibility link (or for someone to step > up and adapt library-web). > > And looking at it now, jhbuild, too, has references to the branch. This should fix one instance of it: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/jhbuild/-/merge_requests/84 I haven't looked at library-web because I have a whole bunch of work that I'd need to do with it, but not the bandwidth... > > > cheers, > Fred > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
Doing some thread grave digging. On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 15:18 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list > wrote: > > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master > > > > Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but > > not > > in the context of master copy > > > > "an original version of something from which copies can be made:" > > .. > > > > this has no connection with slavery at all. > > Reference needed. You don't know where it comes from, and you're not > even trying to find where "master copy" takes its name from. > > > Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection > > to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually > > disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master". > > First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9 > > Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses > "master" for its main branch: > http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_on_top_of_a_different_changeset > > But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"? > See the documentation about > master/slave repositories: > https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 > > But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper: > https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2 > > So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy" > reference, but a straight up master/slave reference. > > Did I get anything wrong there? A year later, and it turns out I was wrong, but still on the right path. The email I'm replying to has been quoted in various online discussions so I thought it would be best for me to update and correct those statements, if they were ever to be used as references. I emailed Linus Torvalds recently (the original author of git, though very quickly not the main developer), and he told me that it was unlikely that the "git master" branch name was influenced by BitKeeper, and that "master" was "fairly standard naming" for this sort of thing and "more likely to be influenced by the CVS master repository". Petr Baudis is apparently the person that came up with the use of "master" and "origin" in git, https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577: " I picked the names "master" (and "origin") in the early Git tooling back in 2005. [...] I have wished many times I would have named them "main" (and "upstream") instead. " and https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441: " "master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the original, but viewed from the production process perspective. " I wanted to conclude that, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter where the name comes from (something that was touched upon a number of times in the thread). The fact that it has bad connotations, or inspires dread for individuals and whole communities, is reason enough to change it. It's especially the case when the term used is pretty inappropriate to describe what it is, and the software is flexible enough that we can very easily change that term without a lot of disruption. I think that we would do well as a project to make that change for all the repositories that we host, so we minimise that differences in our own project. If anyone wants some inspiration as to what they can do for their personal projects, codespell can help you follow best practices using the "usage" dictionary: https://twitter.com/hadessuk/status/1271371994672566273 which will be available as a Fedora update soon: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-12bd755a7c There are also tools to rename the main branch in your GitHub projects, ahead of GitHub doing that by default: https://github.com/dfm/rename-github-default-branch Cheers > [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243ff86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41 > > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
Bastien Nocera wrote: > - How? > > It is possible to rename the "master" branch in git. It's also possible > to add a "link" of sorts so that software that specifically references > "master" can be made to work with the new name[5]. I checked and there is an hardcoded reference (git) master (branch) in library-web; while other GNOME changes did destroy much of library-web (meson without alternative way to get gtk-doc HTML files), it would still be nice to have the compatibility link (or for someone to step up and adapt library-web). And looking at it now, jhbuild, too, has references to the branch. cheers, Fred ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 12:09:11PM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:46 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to formally propose as a GNOME Goal that GNOME modules > > replace references to the terms "master" and "slave". [...] The scope > > would be to replace occurrences of the terms appearing [...] git > > repositories > > I don't think it makes sense to carry on the unfocused discussion in > the original thread to talk about: > Replacing "master" reference in git branches > as the subject line says. That such a change (git branch name) is needed has been questioned various times. The response to that has been underwhelming. There's no clear explanation. Elsewhere you said the git master name is different from master/slave naming in general. Yet the master/slave is used as a prime example that git master should be renamed. This is not consistent. > - Why? [..] > I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up > "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we > don't need any more comments about whether the negative connotations of > "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture. You seem to suggest to just do it (sole master reference), instead of determining why. If so, that's what loads of people have objected to. > - How? In practice this will mean master will still be around, used and visible in the UI+git. For the UI (gitlab) maybe a hack can be added… but that still will leave it around. Therefore the "How?" is not a "how" IMO, instead of one master branch there will be two names for the same thing. > - Why not in git directly? > > Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this in a > welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline comments > made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go down > about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6]. So no attempt was made, just assumptions about how it would be perceived? It feels like a limited number of people trying to force this through to a huge group (like GNOME3! j/k). > - And to what? > > A few possible names were mentioned/used. "mainline" was thought to [..] One module was already changed though. First things broke, then eventually it worked again, though then showing "master" again. It doesn't come across as a thought out change. > - Next steps > > The GNOME community needs to decide whether this change can be done. > > Most of the original thread was specifically about the git branch name > change, and changing lone "master" references is where most of the > opposition was. > > I expect Michael to send a recap mail about "master/slave" references > in the original thread shortly. For master/slave there seem to be consensus to not use such phrasings. For master alone (e.g. git) there seem to be a near consensus against changing it, all IMO. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On 4 May 2019, at 17:47, drago01 wrote: > > "The term master copy has a unique meaning in art that predates the > modern term. In art, a master copy is the process of drawing or > painting a copy of a another artist's work. It is most common to copy > the work of a master artist, hence the term master copy. This is > considered an essential form of practice. In some cases, master > copies become valuable artworks such as Van Gogh's Flowering Plum > Tree (right) based on Hiroshige's Plum Park in Kameido (left)." > > Source: https://simplicable.com/new/master-copy Ha, cool, I've saved this for later reading. > Does not have a connection to slavery in that context at all. However, the rest of my email explains how this particular explanation doesn’t matter in the end, because the master in “master branch” is likely not the one from master copy. I’ve left it below. I should note though that, at the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter whether this “master” comes from the “master/slave” reference or another. The etymology is not relevant when the emotional impact of a word But it comes from “master/slave”... > > First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]: > > https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac306b96 > > > > Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses > > "master" for its main branch: > > http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_on_top_of_a_different_changeset > > > > But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"? > > See the documentation about > > master/slave repositories: > > https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 > > > > But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper: > > https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2 > > > > So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy" > > reference, but a straight up master/slave reference. > > > > Did I get anything wrong there? > > > > > > > > [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch: > > https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243ff86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Saturday, May 4, 2019, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list > wrote: > > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master > > > > Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but not > > in the context of master copy > > > > "an original version of something from which copies can be made:" .. > > > > this has no connection with slavery at all. > > Reference needed. You don't know where it comes from, and you're not > even trying to find where "master copy" takes its name from. > "The term master copy has a unique meaning in art that predates the modern term. In art, a master copy is the process of drawing or painting a copy of a another artist's work. It is most common to copy the work of a master artist, hence the term master copy. This is considered an essential form of practice. In some cases, master copies become valuable artworks such as Van Gogh's Flowering Plum Tree (right) based on Hiroshige's Plum Park in Kameido (left)." Source: https://simplicable.com/new/master-copy Does not have a connection to slavery in that context at all. > > Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection > > to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually > > disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master". > > First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9 > > Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses > "master" for its main branch: > http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_ > on_top_of_a_different_changeset > > But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"? > See the documentation about > master/slave repositories: > https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 > > But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper: > https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2 > > So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy" > reference, but a straight up master/slave reference. > > Did I get anything wrong there? > > > > [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243f > f86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41 > > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 10:44 AM Ask Hjorth Larsen via desktop-devel-list wrote: > * The proposed link between master branch and slavery is based on > arguments that require a dictionary and etymological analysis. But if > we think master has bad connotations, this is a question of how it > works in real language, not about etymology. Ask, it's valid to state that the ancient use of the word wasn't influenced by modern recording technology; it can't be said with authority that the reverse is true. Mike ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 14:46 Uhr schrieb Bastien Nocera : > > On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 14:07 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 12:09 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > > > - Why? > > > > > > For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references. > > > Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the > > > "gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation, > > > and > > > some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change. > > > > Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps > > being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments > > are > > being made as to _why_ this is. > > > > Specifically, this question needs an answer: > > > > Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged > > term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors? > > > > Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally > > tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery? > > > > It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to > > the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot > > personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in > > isolation. > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a > "master/slave" relationship. > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it > were "slave copies". > > I also linked to this: > https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy > which shows when the term started being used (eg. it doesn't predate or > descend from a term from the middle ages). > > I couldn't find reference to why "mastering" was called "mastering", > but I also could not find any hints that it wasn't connected to > "master/slave". These are arguments based on reason. Thank you for that. Nevertheless it does not convince me: * First of all, at least to me, actively editing out words should be done sparingly and only in cases where there is a *clear* problem. * The proposed link between master branch and slavery is based on arguments that require a dictionary and etymological analysis. But if we think master has bad connotations, this is a question of how it works in real language, not about etymology. (Slave copies are not a well known concept to me, they don't seem to show up in everyday language.) * It is not that surprising that master copy comes from recent times. FWIW there are other terms like master key which go back to when the listings start: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-key . I guess this doesn't make any argument for or against but seems to be related. >From what I have heard so far I simply don't see how the situation can be so bad that it must be edited out, particularly not at the price of going away from a sensible default. I understand that some hold big visions of changing this everywhere. I question the sense of scale or proportion in this. It happens so often that policitians spend huge resources to make changes that 'look good' but are way out of proportion. The arguments here are largely academic or appeal to feelings, they don't have the quantitative justification that I would expect from a proposal that affects everyone, and less so do they justify making the changes as an example for the rest of the internet to follow/be bothered with. Again when there is clear master/slave link in the source, this is a different matter. These can probably just be removed at the will of the maintainer, and nobody will mind. It is a "live and let live"-compatible change, which is not quite true of changing branch names even if it is supposed to not break things. Best regards Ask > > > Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about > > managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable > > analogy. > > I merely said that it existed, an exception to the rule. I didn't > mention it as an analogy, and I'm not sure why you would read it as > that. > > > > I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up > > > "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we > > > don't need any more comments about whether the negative > > > connotations of > > > "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture. > > > > > > I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references > > > where it is the case. > > > > I can appreciate this sentiment (I've been asking for the exact same > > thing the entire time), but this line of reasoning doesn't really > > hold: > > The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary > > should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me. > > Explaining that the connection is
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
I don't like the direction this thread has taken. It has devolved into infighting between one another, and as such I think it best to end it here. People have made their opinions known, and no more minds are likely to be changed in either direction with the tone of the discussion as it is now. On Sat, May 4, 2019, 7:05 AM wrote: > On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:22 AM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > The person you quoted is a troll. In fact, I'm not sure there's any > > comments on that issue that aren't trolls (apart from the OP and the > > repository owner). > > Ah OK then, fooled me because he took a such strong plausibly-sincere > stance against "master" in [1]. > > [1] > > https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-423285329 > > > This is the sort of comment that person made on another platform: > > https://dev.to/rkfg/comment/6bj4 > > (yes, they're so useful that they just get removed, you can see > > snippets of the transphobic nature of them in the full thread if you > > want to read) > > > > I don't think you want to align yourself with this person. > > I actually don't see any non-removed comments from him there, but I'll > take your word for it. Clearly not. > > > The rest of > > your interactions in this thread and the original thread are coming > > out > > as disruptive for the sake of it. Is changing the default git branch > > really something you feel strongly about? > > Well clearly I'm very unimpressed by the proposal and don't want to do > this, yes, but I don't think I have anything more to add to the > discussion at this point, so I guess I'll stop "disrupting." > > Michael > > > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:22 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: The person you quoted is a troll. In fact, I'm not sure there's any comments on that issue that aren't trolls (apart from the OP and the repository owner). Ah OK then, fooled me because he took a such strong plausibly-sincere stance against "master" in [1]. [1] https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-423285329 This is the sort of comment that person made on another platform: https://dev.to/rkfg/comment/6bj4 (yes, they're so useful that they just get removed, you can see snippets of the transphobic nature of them in the full thread if you want to read) I don't think you want to align yourself with this person. I actually don't see any non-removed comments from him there, but I'll take your word for it. Clearly not. The rest of your interactions in this thread and the original thread are coming out as disruptive for the sake of it. Is changing the default git branch really something you feel strongly about? Well clearly I'm very unimpressed by the proposal and don't want to do this, yes, but I don't think I have anything more to add to the discussion at this point, so I guess I'll stop "disrupting." Michael ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list wrote: > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master > > Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but not > in the context of master copy > > "an original version of something from which copies can be made:" .. > > this has no connection with slavery at all. Reference needed. You don't know where it comes from, and you're not even trying to find where "master copy" takes its name from. > Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection > to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually > disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master". First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]: https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9 Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses "master" for its main branch: http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_on_top_of_a_different_changeset But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"? See the documentation about master/slave repositories: https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper: https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2 So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy" reference, but a straight up master/slave reference. Did I get anything wrong there? [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch: https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243ff86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 11:33 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > I don't have a good answer for this. I didn't find an explanation one > way or the other, but there are uses of "slave copies" that aren't > "copied from master" in Google, but usually not in > recording/publishing > fields. > > I just don't know whether "slave copy" is implied in "master copy" or > whether it's completely disconnected from the term. If it's > completely > disconnected, where does "mastering" come from? > > Let me know if you find good etymologies for the verb "master". I > couldn't think of any way that it wouldn't be related to a master > copy > and its "slave" copies. I’m not willing to do research on this, but if you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio), it mentions that it’s the process of preparing and transferring the final audio to a master (canonical, original) storage device, which will serve as a template for all future copies. I don’t understand the obsession with pairing master-anything with slaves. In this concrete example, the better analogy would be cloning - the copies are, for all intents and purposes, identical to the one true original. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Saturday, May 4, 2019, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 01:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Carmen Bianca Bakker > > : > > > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > > > > [...] > > > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same > > > > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", > > > > "the one > > > > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a > > > > "master/slave" relationship. > > > > > > > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, > > > > "master > > > > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from > > > > it > > > > were "slave copies". > > > > > > This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit > > > of > > > logic for me. I can get on board with that. > > > [...] > > > > Is this really true though? I never once heard of a "slave copy", so > > I > > just googled the word combination, yielding only 7.130 results, none > > of which that I skimmed through relate to an actual "slave copy" as > > in > > "copied from master". All seem to deal with copying to > > slave(-machines) or copies that slaves hold. > > For comparison, "master copy" yields >> 542.000.000 results. So > > either > > the term slave copy does not exist at all, or it is very fringe and > > has never been widely used or used recently. > > Thinking about it, a 1:1 copy from master is still a master in its > > own > > right and completely identical to the pristine data it was copied > > from. So there is really do dependency relationship here, as you > > would > > normally have in a traditional master<->slave pattern. All master > > copies are equal in their "master-ness". So, having a slave copy > > makes > > no logical sense to me. > > tl;dr: Is there some further reading on the usage of slave copy in > > projects and its common etymology with master copy? > > I don't have a good answer for this. I didn't find an explanation one > way or the other, but there are uses of "slave copies" that aren't > "copied from master" in Google, but usually not in recording/publishing > fields. > > I just don't know whether "slave copy" is implied in "master copy" or > whether it's completely disconnected from the term. If it's completely > disconnected, where does "mastering" come from? > > Let me know if you find good etymologies for the verb "master". I > couldn't think of any way that it wouldn't be related to a master copy > and its "slave" copies. > > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but not in the context of master copy "an original version of something from which copies can be made:" .. this has no connection with slavery at all. Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master". ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 01:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Carmen Bianca Bakker > : > > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > > > [...] > > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same > > > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", > > > "the one > > > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a > > > "master/slave" relationship. > > > > > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, > > > "master > > > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from > > > it > > > were "slave copies". > > > > This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit > > of > > logic for me. I can get on board with that. > > [...] > > Is this really true though? I never once heard of a "slave copy", so > I > just googled the word combination, yielding only 7.130 results, none > of which that I skimmed through relate to an actual "slave copy" as > in > "copied from master". All seem to deal with copying to > slave(-machines) or copies that slaves hold. > For comparison, "master copy" yields >> 542.000.000 results. So > either > the term slave copy does not exist at all, or it is very fringe and > has never been widely used or used recently. > Thinking about it, a 1:1 copy from master is still a master in its > own > right and completely identical to the pristine data it was copied > from. So there is really do dependency relationship here, as you > would > normally have in a traditional master<->slave pattern. All master > copies are equal in their "master-ness". So, having a slave copy > makes > no logical sense to me. > tl;dr: Is there some further reading on the usage of slave copy in > projects and its common etymology with master copy? I don't have a good answer for this. I didn't find an explanation one way or the other, but there are uses of "slave copies" that aren't "copied from master" in Google, but usually not in recording/publishing fields. I just don't know whether "slave copy" is implied in "master copy" or whether it's completely disconnected from the term. If it's completely disconnected, where does "mastering" come from? Let me know if you find good etymologies for the verb "master". I couldn't think of any way that it wouldn't be related to a master copy and its "slave" copies. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 18:31 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:57 PM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > Seriously Michael, you’re embarrassing yourself. > > I don't feel very embarrassed. Your suggested alternative name, > "main," > is clearly considered to be offensive by at least one of the very > same > people who don't like "master," and who amazingly appears to be > sincere > about this, so does it really still seem like a good option? We're > not > going to accomplish much if we replace one apparently-offensive > branch > name with another. > > Keep trying... eventually we'll find something that is inoffensive. > I > don't think anybody has complained about "trunk" yet. At least I > don't > think elephants will be contributing to GNOME anytime soon. The person you quoted is a troll. In fact, I'm not sure there's any comments on that issue that aren't trolls (apart from the OP and the repository owner). This is the sort of comment that person made on another platform: https://dev.to/rkfg/comment/6bj4 (yes, they're so useful that they just get removed, you can see snippets of the transphobic nature of them in the full thread if you want to read) I don't think you want to align yourself with this person. The rest of your interactions in this thread and the original thread are coming out as disruptive for the sake of it. Is changing the default git branch really something you feel strongly about? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 2:31 AM wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:57 PM, Bastien Nocera > wrote: > > Seriously Michael, you’re embarrassing yourself. > > I don't feel very embarrassed. Your suggested alternative name, "main," > is clearly considered to be offensive by at least one of the very same > people who don't like "master," and who amazingly appears to be sincere > about this, so does it really still seem like a good option? We're not > going to accomplish much if we replace one apparently-offensive branch > name with another. > > Keep trying... eventually we'll find something that is inoffensive. I > don't think anybody has complained about "trunk" yet. At least I don't > think elephants will be contributing to GNOME anytime soon. > Some options to consider: - "unstable" - One of the examples Bastien has mentioned (in the mail probably best summarizing this thread - thanks to him for that), who have done the branch name change is Redis (and are in progress and discussions for replacing the master-slave terminology everywhere), and they call their main branch/default branch/primary branch (you know what I mean) "unstable" [1]. That seems fair enough and inoffensive enough (in English and in the other few languages I understand), the most offended could be the code sitting there right after a stable release. GNOME already uses the stable terminology, so unstable would also be "in context", although not having the ma advantage Bastien mentioned. - "development"/"develop" - beside the self-explanatory, and fairly generically used "development branch", existing in all revision control systems under one name or another [2]. People familiar with git flow are only familiar with the "develop" branch, meaning the "unstable", code for the latest development snapshot. So I think there are options, if GNOME chooses to go down this path. (I usually stand with defaults, so I'm ok with master, but I think I could live with the change, if it happens) Regards, Robert [1] https://github.com/antirez/redis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_(version_control)#Development_branch [3] https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > Michael > > > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:57 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: Seriously Michael, you’re embarrassing yourself. I don't feel very embarrassed. Your suggested alternative name, "main," is clearly considered to be offensive by at least one of the very same people who don't like "master," and who amazingly appears to be sincere about this, so does it really still seem like a good option? We're not going to accomplish much if we replace one apparently-offensive branch name with another. Keep trying... eventually we'll find something that is inoffensive. I don't think anybody has complained about "trunk" yet. At least I don't think elephants will be contributing to GNOME anytime soon. Michael ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Carmen Bianca Bakker : > > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > > [...] > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same > > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one > > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a > > "master/slave" relationship. > > > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master > > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it > > were "slave copies". > > This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of > logic for me. I can get on board with that. > [...] Is this really true though? I never once heard of a "slave copy", so I just googled the word combination, yielding only 7.130 results, none of which that I skimmed through relate to an actual "slave copy" as in "copied from master". All seem to deal with copying to slave(-machines) or copies that slaves hold. For comparison, "master copy" yields >> 542.000.000 results. So either the term slave copy does not exist at all, or it is very fringe and has never been widely used or used recently. Thinking about it, a 1:1 copy from master is still a master in its own right and completely identical to the pristine data it was copied from. So there is really do dependency relationship here, as you would normally have in a traditional master<->slave pattern. All master copies are equal in their "master-ness". So, having a slave copy makes no logical sense to me. tl;dr: Is there some further reading on the usage of slave copy in projects and its common etymology with master copy? Cheers, Matthias -- I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
> On 4 May 2019, at 00:29, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:09 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> - And to what? >> A few possible names were mentioned/used. "mainline" was thought to >> have strong connections to drug use, "release" (use in the contributor >> covenant) seems to restrictive (we also do releases from other >> branches). I like "main" because it keeps 2 letters from "master" so >> diminishes the need to retrain your muscle memory. "trunk" definitely >> makes sense when talking about branches but doesn't have the "ma" >> advantage. > > "main" seems like it should be safe, yet since you linked to > https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569 it > seems fair to quote the second comment there: > >> "Main" suggests inequality, I'm against that. > > So good luck finding an inoffensive name for the, er, primary branch. (I > probably shouldn't say "primary," though, since primacy also suggests > inequality) Seriously Michael, you’re embarrassing yourself. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:09 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: - And to what? A few possible names were mentioned/used. "mainline" was thought to have strong connections to drug use, "release" (use in the contributor covenant) seems to restrictive (we also do releases from other branches). I like "main" because it keeps 2 letters from "master" so diminishes the need to retrain your muscle memory. "trunk" definitely makes sense when talking about branches but doesn't have the "ma" advantage. "main" seems like it should be safe, yet since you linked to https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569 it seems fair to quote the second comment there: "Main" suggests inequality, I'm against that. So good luck finding an inoffensive name for the, er, primary branch. (I probably shouldn't say "primary," though, since primacy also suggests inequality) Michael ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 15:35 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > > > > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same > > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the > > one > > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a > > "master/slave" relationship. > > > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, > > "master > > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it > > were "slave copies". > > This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of > logic for me. I can get on board with that. > > Beyond just that logic, however, are there organisations who hold the > same opinion? Affected people who do? That would be immensely > valuable > as rationale for making the change, beside this somewhat semantic > argument. I've quoted a few individuals who made this change in the original mail, but I don't have more information here. > > > The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only > > > difference > > > would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in > > > internet > > > comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it". > > > > Because you think that it would be just the organisations being > > smeared? Or that they would just be smeared? Sorry, I'm not > > courageous > > (or foolish) enough to even attempt that. > > Maybe I'm misinterpreting. You said that doing this upstream would > result in people being mad. I asserted that it's going to result in > people being mad one way or another. I did not mean or imply anything > other than that, and do not see how this statement can be interpreted > otherwise. It's mostly about the size and reach of the people "being mad", and the target audience. When GNOME adopts a full code of conduct for online behaviour (our current one is only for events), I don't expect it to cause the same sort of response from the wider community as when the Linux kernel did. Or when Python removed the "master/slave" terms from its code base. > In any case, thank you, you've convinced me. I stand by most of what > I've said, but I can kind of see the connection to the practice of > slavery more clearly. > > If the change can be done transparently (i.e., nobody needs to lift a > finger, as said in the thread), I don't have any strong objections > against the change. Otherwise I'd urge to balance the gains against > the > pains. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > > Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps > > being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments > > are > > being made as to _why_ this is. > > > > Specifically, this question needs an answer: > > > > Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged > > term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors? > > > > Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally > > tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery? > > > > It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to > > the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot > > personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in > > isolation. > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a > "master/slave" relationship. > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it > were "slave copies". This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of logic for me. I can get on board with that. Beyond just that logic, however, are there organisations who hold the same opinion? Affected people who do? That would be immensely valuable as rationale for making the change, beside this somewhat semantic argument. > > Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about > > managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable > > analogy. > > I merely said that it existed, an exception to the rule. I didn't > mention it as an analogy, and I'm not sure why you would read it as > that. I interpreted that line as being "the master branch isn't usually paired up with the word 'slave', except in 'gitslave'". I guess that is the source of confusion. > > The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary > > should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me. > > Explaining that the connection is tenuous isn't the same thing as > repeatedly being told that it's invalid because it's not valid to the > person sending the email. It's the latter that I mind. Agreed. > > > made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go > > > down > > > about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6]. > > > > I still believe that this would be a valuable endeavour if the > > premise > > is true. Maybe I'm naive, but if the premise is true and the word > > "master" negatively affects people, then doing this upstream would > > beneficially impact more people than if this were done just in GNOME. > > > > It would also reduce the pain of breaking a default. > > > > The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only > > difference > > would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet > > comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it". > > Because you think that it would be just the organisations being > smeared? Or that they would just be smeared? Sorry, I'm not courageous > (or foolish) enough to even attempt that. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. You said that doing this upstream would result in people being mad. I asserted that it's going to result in people being mad one way or another. I did not mean or imply anything other than that, and do not see how this statement can be interpreted otherwise. In any case, thank you, you've convinced me. I stand by most of what I've said, but I can kind of see the connection to the practice of slavery more clearly. If the change can be done transparently (i.e., nobody needs to lift a finger, as said in the thread), I don't have any strong objections against the change. Otherwise I'd urge to balance the gains against the pains. With kindness, Carmen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:08 AM Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only difference > would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet > comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it". Better us than them, because they may not be used to it? It was suggested that this was US sensibilities gone wrong (it wasn't initiated from the US), and a response was that it's "wildly farfetched by US standards." Hopefully GNOME can set the standards bar a little higher and lead by example. Mike ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 14:07 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 12:09 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > > - Why? > > > > For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references. > > Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the > > "gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation, > > and > > some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change. > > Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps > being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments > are > being made as to _why_ this is. > > Specifically, this question needs an answer: > > Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged > term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors? > > Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally > tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery? > > It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to > the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot > personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in > isolation. If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a "master/slave" relationship. There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it were "slave copies". I also linked to this: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy which shows when the term started being used (eg. it doesn't predate or descend from a term from the middle ages). I couldn't find reference to why "mastering" was called "mastering", but I also could not find any hints that it wasn't connected to "master/slave". > Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about > managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable > analogy. I merely said that it existed, an exception to the rule. I didn't mention it as an analogy, and I'm not sure why you would read it as that. > > I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up > > "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we > > don't need any more comments about whether the negative > > connotations of > > "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture. > > > > I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references > > where it is the case. > > I can appreciate this sentiment (I've been asking for the exact same > thing the entire time), but this line of reasoning doesn't really > hold: > The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary > should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me. Explaining that the connection is tenuous isn't the same thing as repeatedly being told that it's invalid because it's not valid to the person sending the email. It's the latter that I mind. > I suppose what that paragraph should have said is that the opinions > of > those negatively affected are prioritised, owing to the simple fact > that they are negatively affected. That makes more sense to me. > > > - Why not in git directly? > > > > Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this > > in a > > welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline > > comments > > made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go > > down > > about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6]. > > I still believe that this would be a valuable endeavour if the > premise > is true. Maybe I'm naive, but if the premise is true and the word > "master" negatively affects people, then doing this upstream would > beneficially impact more people than if this were done just in GNOME. > > It would also reduce the pain of breaking a default. > > The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only > difference > would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet > comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it". Because you think that it would be just the organisations being smeared? Or that they would just be smeared? Sorry, I'm not courageous (or foolish) enough to even attempt that. Think of what this process is as inspiration to others. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 12:09 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > - Why? > > For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references. > Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the > "gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation, and > some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change. Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments are being made as to _why_ this is. Specifically, this question needs an answer: Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors? Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery? It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in isolation. Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable analogy. > I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up > "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we > don't need any more comments about whether the negative connotations of > "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture. > > I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references > where it is the case. I can appreciate this sentiment (I've been asking for the exact same thing the entire time), but this line of reasoning doesn't really hold: The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me. I suppose what that paragraph should have said is that the opinions of those negatively affected are prioritised, owing to the simple fact that they are negatively affected. That makes more sense to me. > - Why not in git directly? > > Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this in a > welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline comments > made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go down > about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6]. I still believe that this would be a valuable endeavour if the premise is true. Maybe I'm naive, but if the premise is true and the word "master" negatively affects people, then doing this upstream would beneficially impact more people than if this were done just in GNOME. It would also reduce the pain of breaking a default. The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only difference would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it". With kindness, Carmen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 08:36 +0200, Daniel Mustieles García via desktop- devel-list wrote: > The problem is that he is not only writting a summary. He has renamed > master branch in GitLab, he has noticed people in Ubuntu about this > change, he has ignored us when we have said his arguments about > Python, Django, etc were not valid, he has ignored what most of the > people in this thread has said... that's not just a summary and > that's not just a proposal. The change was done before opening this > thread. The thread is about "GNOME modules" in general, not about Geary. Whatever happened with Geary is a different matter, and there are threads related to that which you can probably reply to. He also hasn't ignored you, or others, he's trying to figure out how to respond to walls of text and dubious pushback, which I'm helping with. Also, is there still a problem translating Geary using Damned Lies now? If there is, reply to the original thread, or file a sysadmin bug. It will be interesting as a test case for mass migration. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 12:48 +0100, Richard Hughes via desktop-devel- list wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 12:38, Michael Gratton wrote: > > They have also been successful in getting other projects to use > > more > > inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop > > using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so. > > That's misrepresenting it *AGAIN*. Both stopped using master along > with slave. The main developer branch is still called master in both > projects. This thread isn't just about git branches. Here's the original mail for reference: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-April/msg00049.html In particular: " The scope would be to replace occurrences of the terms appearing in the user interface, web sites, documentation, APIs (except as deprecated symbols), and git repositories - essentially wherever a person using or developing software for GNOME may reasonably encounter them. " ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:46 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to formally propose as a GNOME Goal that GNOME modules > replace references to the terms "master" and "slave". [...] The scope > would be to replace occurrences of the terms appearing [...] git > repositories I don't think it makes sense to carry on the unfocused discussion in the original thread to talk about: Replacing "master" reference in git branches as the subject line says. - Why? For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references. Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the "gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation, and some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change. Is "master" as in "master copy" as tainted? Given that "master copy" is a recent term[3], it came to be in a world where the end of slavery[4] was still in living memory, I don't think the answer is as clear cut as some of the threads made it out to be. GNOME wouldn't be the first to make this change[1][2], but probably the most significant yet. We've been the first, or amongst the first, for a number of initiatives, and shown our progressiveness. I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we don't need any more comments about whether the negative connotations of "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture. I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references where it is the case. - How? It is possible to rename the "master" branch in git. It's also possible to add a "link" of sorts so that software that specifically references "master" can be made to work with the new name[5]. If GNOME chooses to keep the compatibility name, we'll probably need to start filing bugs in some pieces of software that think the 2 branch names are separate branches (GitLab being one of them). This would help other software adopt new default branch names, and fix corner cases for everyone else. In short, you, the user, the developer, the checkouter, shouldn't need to even lift a finger. - Why not in git directly? Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this in a welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline comments made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go down about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6]. - And to what? A few possible names were mentioned/used. "mainline" was thought to have strong connections to drug use, "release" (use in the contributor covenant) seems to restrictive (we also do releases from other branches). I like "main" because it keeps 2 letters from "master" so diminishes the need to retrain your muscle memory. "trunk" definitely makes sense when talking about branches but doesn't have the "ma" advantage. - Next steps The GNOME community needs to decide whether this change can be done. Most of the original thread was specifically about the git branch name change, and changing lone "master" references is where most of the opposition was. I expect Michael to send a recap mail about "master/slave" references in the original thread shortly. Cheers [1]: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-424896149 [2]: https://miklb.com/blog/2017/08/29/deprecating-the-term-git-master/ [3]: See the "Trends" section at https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy [4]: "the abolition of slavery in the western world", it's hard to be concise yet precise in cases like this [5]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-April/msg00113.html [6]: I wouldn't read this if I were you: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+coc ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 08:47 +0200, Daniel Mustieles García via desktop- devel-list wrote: > > > El mié., 1 may. 2019 a las 14:39, Michael Gratton () > escribió: > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:30, Carmen Bianca Bakker > > wrote: > > > > > > I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make > > this > > > change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this > > > change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their > > master > > > branch, so it's a disingenuous example. > > > > I never claimed that, so I'm actually the one being mis- > > represented > > here. :) > > YOU DID. You've argued we should change master branch name because > Python, Django, Rust did it. You've mixed two concepts: the use of > master/slave terms in source code and the name of the master branch. > Please don't fall in victimism, you have done wrong and you should > fix it. > > You are completely free to change every "master" appearance in your > source code if you want so, but you shouldn't change master branch's > name, we have explained why several times. > > > I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term > > "master", and we should do the same. This thread isn't just about git branches, that's just what you used to derail the thread and yell at Michael early on. Here's the original mail for reference: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-April/msg00049.html In particular: " The scope would be to replace occurrences of the terms appearing in the user interface, web sites, documentation, APIs (except as deprecated symbols), and git repositories - essentially wherever a person using or developing software for GNOME may reasonably encounter them. " ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)
On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 10:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:08 AM, Michael Gratton wrote: > > This has already been covered in the original proposal under > > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, > > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the > > people > > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These > > are > > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, > > and > > it is the project that loses out in the end. > > You've yet to provide any evidence for this. We're asking for > evidence > because it is *extremely* difficult to believe. You're losing us > here. > > > To address some of your points directly however, this censorship > > in > > as much as the CoC is censorship, and as much as you already > > self-censor when choosing names for things in projects you > > participate in. That is to say, not actually censorship at all. In > > fact, you can see this proposal as simply aiming to extend the CoC > > to > > our documentation, API, and development infrastructure. > > Michael, the events CoC is a reasonable CoC written by reasonable > people designed to ensure we treat each other reasonably well. It > has > broad support -- perhaps not universal, but at least pretty broad -- > from the GNOME community because we mostly all agree it is > reasonable. Our code of conduct isn't a direct descendant of the contributor covenant, but it's still widely used in our community, including the Linux kernel: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/blob/release/static/adopters.csv and its master branch name was changed: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-424896149 I quote so you don't have to read the issue that's of similar tone to this thread: " The main branch is now called 'release'. Thank you for pointing this out. (And I wish that GIthub would make something like this the default.) " > What you're proposing is not reasonable. It's really not. There's no > way you're going to convince the community that we should avoid > commonly-used words that are generally considered inoffensive, just > because a small minority might feel otherwise Re-read this sentence a bunch of times, it's pretty much the opposite of what our community stands for. Offensiveness isn't a popularity contest. > (which, in this case, is > hard to believe, but I suppose people are not always reasonable). This is uncalled for. > If you want to help make the GNOME community more inclusive in a > more > productive way, you could, for example, work on generalizing the > events > CoC to apply to all GNOME community interactions, like this mailing > list, rather than just specific in-person events. I would suspect > that > would have broad support. That's already being worked though, isn't it? I don't see why we can't work on both. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
