Hi, Do you know if there would be a redirect of existing PR and "existing" references to master or does it break the ecosystem for a while - if so I'm not sure it is worth it ? If it does not break anything "latest" does not sound that bad and likely avoids this superior/inferior thought people can have as with master or main and it sounds more modern than trunk ;).
Indeed, just my 2 cents ;). Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mar. 16 juin 2020 à 17:36, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> a écrit : > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:02 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> All, >> >> You may have seen the recent discussions both inside and outside the ASF >> about the user of "master" as the name of the default git branch. If you >> haven't, the short version is that the name can be traced back to >> master/slave and its associations with human slavery. >> >> I'd like to propose that the Apache Tomcat project renames the master >> branch in all of the project repositories. >> >> I think there are two front runners for the new name: >> >> - main - this looks to be the name GitHub and a number of OSS projects >> will be switching to >> >> - trunk - reflects the Subversion heritage of both the project and the >> ASF >> >> Other options I have seen suggested include "default", "dev", "develop". >> Other suggestions welcome. >> >> Personally, I am leaning towards main as that looks to be the choice of >> the majority and using the majority choice will make it (a little bit) >> easier for new community members to find their way around the project. >> >> In terms of impact, changing the name is going to break stuff. It is >> really creating a new branch and deleting the old one. >> >> Deleting a branch triggers the automatic closure of github PRs against >> that branch. However if we create "$new_branch" we can edit the PRs to >> use "$new_branch" before we delete master. Given the small number of >> open PRs that is easily done. >> >> CI systems will need to be updated (buildbot, gump). That should be >> relatively simple. >> >> Docs will need to be updated (relatively simple). >> >> Committers and contributors will rebase any local branches to $new_branch >> >> Having thought about what is involved, renaming the default branch >> doesn't look as problematic as I thought it might be. This looks like >> something that could be done in around an hour for all our repos. >> >> Thoughts? >> > > I, personally, do not see any relation between technical nomenclature and > social problems in real life. > I have many colored skin friends and colleagues and I've never heard > anyone making such associations. > I am Bulgarian. Until not so long ago we were ruled for 5 centuries by > Ottomans but I do not feel like a slave and I don't find 'master' branch > name anyhow related to slavery. > I am -0 on such change and any other change that comes from politics. > > But if we are going to change the branch name then I suggest '10.0.x'. > This way it will be consistent with all other branches. > > Martin > > >> Mark >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >> >>
