Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 14:46 Uhr schrieb Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net>: > > 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 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 _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
