I am in favor of this proposal. It is easy to change the branch name from git, but I am not aware of what possible technical difficulties there might be outside of GitHub in making this change. The use of "master" is so wide-spread that there may be automated or semi-automated systems that may assume, by default, that the branch to pull from is "master" and these might require reconfiguration.
Lee. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:01 AM Jon Malkin <[email protected]> wrote: > In recent days, and in response to current events outside the tech world, > some tech companies have taken to revisiting terminology. It's not > something particularly new; there was an IETF draft proposal around the > topic from late 2018: > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-00.html > > One lesson I've taken away from this effort is that changing the > default/legacy naming schemes can often help improve naming clarity. > ArsTechnica noted this in their write-up of the changes to ZFS, noting how > 3 different projects moved away from 'master/slave' terminology in 3 > different ways, each providing a more accurate description of the > underlying relationship for the use case. > > With that in mind, and recalling that Apache's policies are that we should > recommend people grab our official releases, I'm proposing we change our > default branch to be named 'prerelease'. This will help make it clear to > anyone cloning our repos that they are using code that has not yet been > released. > > Any thoughts? Votes in favor/opposed? > > jon >
