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

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

Reply via email to