Hi, I follow the conversation at [email protected]. too.
I'm +1 for it. Kind Regards, Furkan KAMACI On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:02 PM leerho <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >
