This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I’m -1 on this. I agree with being inclusive where it makes sense, however this whole “master vs. main” controversy is rooted in an idea that is ill-informed, ill-conceived, and provides no technical benefit. I’ll make my case as follows:
1. Ill-informed - Myth: “master” as used in Git is reflective of slavery - Fact: Words mean drastically different things in different contexts. The word “master” has 26 distinct definitions (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/master), only 1 of which has any connection with slavery. The most appropriate definition of “master” as used within Git would probably be 23: “Computers. An original data file or disk from which duplicates may be made.” This definition also follows from the previous one as used in audio recording. 22b: "an audio disk or tape from which duplicates may be made”. - Conclusion: The desire to eradicate “master” from technology is rooted in a false premise that it has connections with slavery. Clearly, **when used in context** it does not. If we believe there is merit in removing "master” from git, should we also remove “master’s degrees”, honorary titles (Master Smith), ship captains (Master Mariner), recording masters, photographic masters, descriptions of the highly skilled: “chess master”, “grandmaster”, “schoolmaster”? Where does it stop? 2. Ill-Conceived - Myth: Changing the branch name is free (or low cost) - Fact: A change like this is anything but free. Having gone through this several times in the past, I can confidently say we will be dealing with the technical fallout of this for months if not longer. Every reference to the code, both publicly and privately, has to be updated. This includes not only working copies, but CI/CD pipelines, including for any user or company that maintains their own. There’s a “flag day” where everything prior is now irrevocably divorced from what comes after. Since we have multiple repositories, there’s now inter-repository work as well. - Conclusion: This change would create a tremendous amount of technical debt. Racism, slavery, and exploitation are real issues that have been plaguing humanity since there have been multiple different people around. They won’t be solved by excising words from our vocabulary (especially those with legitimate technical definitions) and only serve to let people give themselves a pat on the back. Want to make a real difference? Donate time or resources to one of many organizations working to end things like human trafficking. That will provide far more benefit than any mass rename of code. To those who may be tempted to find the use of the word “master” as used in Git offensive: I would encourage you to educate yourself about the nuance of language and recognize that the offense is in how people treat each other, and not in what words are deemed today as “ok” and tomorrow as “off-limits”. Craig > On Jan 26, 2023, at 6:25 PM, Wilfred Spiegelenburg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The naming of our default branch master, while very common, can be seen as > offensive. > I would like to propose that after the release of YuniKorn 1.2 we rename > our default branch from master to "trunk". There are other options like: > "main" or "development". > > We cannot execute the rename ourselves and need the help of the Apache > Infra team. After this change we will need to update github workflows, > documentation and some of the tools we use. > > After the renaming, all local clones will need to be updated to point to > the trunk. The process of how to do that is well documented [1] but it does > require action from everyone. > > two things that we need to confirm: > * the timing first action after the release of YuniKorn 1.2 > * the name of the new default branch to become "trunk" > > Wilfred > > [1] > https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/managing-branches-in-your-repository/renaming-a-branch#updating-a-local-clone-after-a-branch-name-changes
