I also do not feel strongly about either name, especially (as mentioned
before) because it derives from the master record analogy.
If I may add something: I asked a good friend of mine (an Afro-American
woman with relevant ancestry for this topic). She said that she
"wouldn't bother" renaming anything in this context. She would in no way
feel put off by the term 'master' or even associate it with anything
bad, not least because it has many (often positive) meanings outside the
historic context (e.g. master degree).
TL;DR
I am slightly in favor of leaving it as is, but wouldn't object if
anyone wants to change it.
Cheers,
Til
On 21/04/2021 21:36, Tobias Bouschen wrote:
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
