I don't think there is any way of making everybody happy here. No matter
what we do, somebody will most likely complain. From reading the
discussions you linked to, Craig, the arguments seem to go around in
circles. Either it matters or doesn't matter what the etymological
origin/usage/context of the usage in git is depending on the point the
different sides want to make and which quotes from different prominent
git developers they are referring to. Furthermore, the discussion has
devolved more into a discussion about "social justice warriors" and
"political correctness" than the actual topic at hand.
I, personally, don't see an issue with the usage of the word "master" in
this context (or at least not enough of an issue to warrant the time
investment of changing the infrastructure). Even if the word were to
have come from the "master/slave" terminology in BitKeeper (which is a
conjecture at best), it does not really make sense in this context. The
usage in the context of "master record" is a clear and fitting analogy
for the concept at hand in my opinion. Reading the discussion hasn't
really changed my mind in this regard. But if there are more
constructive discussions/opinions on the topic that could change my
view, I am definitely open to it. Links are welcome. :)
So my suggestion is still the same: wait and see if there is an official
stance of the Apache organization regarding the topic (which is probably
unlikely) or anybody involved with the project feels strongly enough
about it to warrant the change. Waiting for an Apache ruling has the
added bonus of avoiding the entire discussion as we can simply defer it
pointing to the "external" decision made by the Apache organization.
But, if anybody else in the team feels more strongly about this topic
and would like the name to change, I am not opposed to it. I just don't
see any gain in doing it right now just to get ahead of the discussion
(as this will only lead to complaints coming from the other side, as you
have already seen).
Best regards,
Tobias
On 4/20/21 7:44 PM, Michael Bouschen wrote:
Hi Craig,
I'm fine with renaming master to main and have main the default branch
of our repositories. This follows what github is doing for new projects.
If we do rename I see the following steps:
- Rename master to main in both repositories gitbox and github. Most
probably this involves infra.
- Adapt some scripts and our documentation (WebSite, READMEs, ...)
- Change our workspaces as described in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-793
Regards Michael
Hi,
I'd like to have all of us come to the same understanding of renaming the main
branch of our repos.
Here is some background reading to inform our decision.
https://github.com/pmmmwh/react-refresh-webpack-plugin/issues/113
Let's have a discussion now and vote later.
Regards,
Craig
Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org
