Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 12:38, Michael Gratton wrote: > They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more > inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop > using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so. That's misrepresenting it *AGAIN*. Both stopped using master along with slave. The main developer branch is still called master in both projects. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 06:23, Tristan Van Berkom via desktop-devel-list wrote: > Proposing that we replace references to master/slave relationships with > other terminology and proposing that we eliminate the usage of both > words entirely are two entirely different proposals, this is a proposal > of the latter which appears to be masquerading as the former. This nails my thinking completely. I've already removed all references to master/slave in my other projects (fwupd and LVFS), but renaming the master branch which has no connection with any kind of slave is just a completely different proposal. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 06:21, wrote: > This should go without saying, but master branches are not a reference > to slavery, rather to canonicity. The master branch is the canonical > branch, the primary copy. This is very much my thinking too. I'd agree with this proposal if every branch forked from master was called slave/hughsie/whatever but in this case the master is clearly referring to the canonical version that the others are derived from. The word "master" isn't a bad word, and doesn't always mean the opposite of slave. I was hesitant to reply to this conversation as a middle-aged, middle income white man but felt like I had to say something. I'll go get my flame proof suit... Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: App menu retirement: progress update
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 17:09, Allan Day wrote: > gnome-multi-writer Removed in master. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
GNOME Mastodon Instance?
Hi all, Now that Google+ is declared officially dead, I wondered if GNOME would consider hosting a Mastodon instance. There's a bug already open, https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/Infrastructure/issues/23 -- but I guess this needs someone to drive this and actually do the work. I know I would trust a GNOME instance more than a random server, both from a privacy point of view and security/moderation point of view. It seems a shame to loose all the useful geeky connections with people in the Open Source community, as people scatter to Twitter, Facebook and all the other non-free places. Maybe now is the perfect time to promote Mastodon and GNOME? Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: No app menu changes for GNOME 3.30, please!
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 17:32, wrote: > From the lack of objections to Allan's original proposal, it's clear > that we have consensus on removing the app menus, so I suggest we > should feel free to delete our app menus in master after branching for > 3.30. I'm currently on PTO for another week (stuck up a mountain with no internet access) -- but I can certainly do this when I get back. There are commits on top of the app-menu removal already so it's not just a case of just reverting a patch. Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
