subject:"Proposal\: Replace all references to master\/slave in GNOME modules"

2019-05-04 Thread Ask Hjorth Larsen via desktop-devel-list



On 4 May 2019, at 17:47, drago01  wrote:
> 

> "The term master copy has a unique meaning in art that predates the
> modern term. In art, a master copy is the process of drawing or
> painting a copy of a another artist's work. It is most common to copy
> the work of a master artist, hence the term master copy. This is
> considered an essential form of practice. In some cases, master
> copies become valuable artworks such as Van Gogh's Flowering Plum
> Tree (right) based on Hiroshige's Plum Park in Kameido (left)."
> 
> Source: https://simplicable.com/new/master-copy

Ha, cool, I've saved this for later reading.

> Does not have a connection to slavery in that context at all.

However, the rest of my email explains how this particular explanation
doesn’t matter in the end, because the master in “master branch” is
likely not the one from master copy.

I’ve left it below.

I should note though that, at the end of the day,
it shouldn’t matter whether this “master” comes from the “master/slave”
reference or another. The etymology is not relevant when the emotional impact 
of a word But it comes from “master/slave”...

> > First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]:
> > https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac306b96
> > 
> > Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses
> > "master" for its main branch:
> > http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_on_top_of_a_different_changeset
> > 
> > But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"?
> > See the documentation about
> > master/slave repositories:
> > https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223
> > 
> > But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper:
> > https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2
> > 
> > So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy"
> > reference, but a straight up master/slave reference.
> > 
> > Did I get anything wrong there?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch:
> > https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243ff86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-04 Thread drago01 via desktop-devel-list

On Saturday, May 4, 2019, Bastien Nocera  wrote:

> On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list
> wrote:
> >  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master
> >
> > Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but not
> > in the context of master copy
> >
> > "an original version of something from which copies can be made:" ..
> >
> > this has no connection with slavery at all.
>
> Reference needed. You don't know where it comes from, and you're not
> even trying to find where "master copy" takes its name from.
>


"The term master copy has a unique meaning in art that predates the modern
term. In art, a master copy is the process of drawing or painting a copy of
a another artist's work. It is most common to copy the work of a master
artist, hence the term master copy. This is considered an essential form of
practice. In some cases, master copies become valuable artworks such as Van
Gogh's Flowering Plum Tree (right) based on Hiroshige's Plum Park in
Kameido (left)."

Source: https://simplicable.com/new/master-copy

Does not have a connection to slavery in that context at all.


> >  Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection
> > to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually
> > disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master".
>
> First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]:
> https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9
>
> Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses
> "master" for its main branch:
> http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_
> on_top_of_a_different_changeset
>
> But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"?
> See the documentation about
> master/slave repositories:
> https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223
>
> But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper:
> https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2
>
> So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy"
> reference, but a straight up master/slave reference.
>
> Did I get anything wrong there?
>
>
>
> [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch:
> https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243f
> f86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41
>
>
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-04 Thread Michael Hill via desktop-devel-list

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 10:44 AM Ask Hjorth Larsen via
desktop-devel-list  wrote:

>  * The proposed link between master branch and slavery is based on
> arguments that require a dictionary and etymological analysis.  But if
> we think master has bad connotations, this is a question of how it
> works in real language, not about etymology.

Ask, it's valid to state that the ancient use of the word wasn't
influenced by modern recording technology; it can't be said with
authority that the reverse is true.

Mike
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 14:46 Uhr schrieb Bastien Nocera :
>
> On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 14:07 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
> > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 12:09 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > > - Why?
> > >
> > > For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references.
> > > Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the
> > > "gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation,
> > > and
> > > some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change.
> >
> > Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps
> > being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments
> > are
> > being made as to _why_ this is.
> >
> > Specifically, this question needs an answer:
> >
> > Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged
> > term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors?
> >
> > Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally
> > tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery?
> >
> > It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to
> > the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot
> > personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in
> > isolation.
>
> If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
> "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one
> medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
> "master/slave" relationship.
>
> There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master
> copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it
> were "slave copies".
>
> I also linked to this:
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy
> which shows when the term started being used (eg. it doesn't predate or
> descend from a term from the middle ages).
>
> I couldn't find reference to why "mastering" was called "mastering",
> but I also could not find any hints that it wasn't connected to
> "master/slave".

These are arguments based on reason.  Thank you for that.

Nevertheless it does not convince me:

 * First of all, at least to me, actively editing out words should be
done sparingly and only in cases where there is a *clear* problem.

 * The proposed link between master branch and slavery is based on
arguments that require a dictionary and etymological analysis.  But if
we think master has bad connotations, this is a question of how it
works in real language, not about etymology.

 (Slave copies are not a well known concept to me, they don't seem to
show up in everyday language.)

 * It is not that surprising that master copy comes from recent times.
FWIW there are other terms like master key which go back to when the
listings start:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-key .  I
guess this doesn't make any argument for or against but seems to be
related.

>From what I have heard so far I simply don't see how the situation can
be so bad that it must be edited out, particularly not at the price of
going away from a sensible default.  I understand that some hold big
visions of changing this everywhere.  I question the sense of scale or
proportion in this.  It happens so often that policitians spend huge
resources to make changes that 'look good' but are way out of
proportion.  The arguments here are largely academic or appeal to
feelings, they don't have the quantitative justification that I would
expect from a proposal that affects everyone, and less so do they
justify making the changes as an example for the rest of the internet
to follow/be bothered with.

Again when there is clear master/slave link in the source, this is a
different matter.  These can probably just be removed at the will of
the maintainer, and nobody will mind.  It is a "live and let
live"-compatible change, which is not quite true of changing branch
names even if it is supposed to not break things.

Best regards


Ask


>
> > Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about
> > managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable
> > analogy.
>
> I merely said that it existed, an exception to the rule. I didn't
> mention it as an analogy, and I'm not sure why you would read it as
> that.
>
> > > I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up
> > > "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we
> > > don't need any more comments about whether the negative
> > > connotations of
> > > "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture.
> > >
> > > I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references
> > > where it is the case.
> >
> > I can appreciate this sentiment (I've been asking for the exact same
> > thing the entire time), but this line of reasoning doesn't really
> > hold:
> > The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary
> > should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me.
>
> Explaining that the connection is

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-04 Thread Britt Yazel via desktop-devel-list

I don't like the direction this thread has taken. It has devolved into
infighting between one another, and as such I think it best to end it here.
People have made their opinions known, and no more minds are likely to be
changed in either direction with the tone of the discussion as it is now.

On Sat, May 4, 2019, 7:05 AM  wrote:

> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:22 AM, Bastien Nocera 
> wrote:
> > The person you quoted is a troll. In fact, I'm not sure there's any
> > comments on that issue that aren't trolls (apart from the OP and the
> > repository owner).
>
> Ah OK then, fooled me because he took a such strong plausibly-sincere
> stance against "master" in [1].
>
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-423285329
>
> > This is the sort of comment that person made on another platform:
> > https://dev.to/rkfg/comment/6bj4
> > (yes, they're so useful that they just get removed, you can see
> > snippets of the transphobic nature of them in the full thread if you
> > want to read)
> >
> > I don't think you want to align yourself with this person.
>
> I actually don't see any non-removed comments from him there, but I'll
> take your word for it. Clearly not.
>
> > The rest of
> > your interactions in this thread and the original thread are coming
> > out
> > as disruptive for the sake of it. Is changing the default git branch
> > really something you feel strongly about?
>
> Well clearly I'm very unimpressed by the proposal and don't want to do
> this, yes, but I don't think I have anything more to add to the
> discussion at this point, so I guess I'll stop "disrupting."
>
> Michael
>
>
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-04 Thread mcatanzaro

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:22 AM, Bastien Nocera  
wrote:

The person you quoted is a troll. In fact, I'm not sure there's any
comments on that issue that aren't trolls (apart from the OP and the
repository owner).


Ah OK then, fooled me because he took a such strong plausibly-sincere 
stance against "master" in [1].


[1] 
https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-423285329



This is the sort of comment that person made on another platform:
https://dev.to/rkfg/comment/6bj4
(yes, they're so useful that they just get removed, you can see
snippets of the transphobic nature of them in the full thread if you
want to read)

I don't think you want to align yourself with this person.


I actually don't see any non-removed comments from him there, but I'll 
take your word for it. Clearly not.



The rest of
your interactions in this thread and the original thread are coming 
out

as disruptive for the sake of it. Is changing the default git branch
really something you feel strongly about?


Well clearly I'm very unimpressed by the proposal and don't want to do 
this, yes, but I don't think I have anything more to add to the 
discussion at this point, so I guess I'll stop "disrupting."


Michael


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list
wrote:
>  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master
> 
> Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but not
> in the context of master copy 
> 
> "an original version of something from which copies can be made:" .. 
> 
> this has no connection with slavery at all.

Reference needed. You don't know where it comes from, and you're not
even trying to find where "master copy" takes its name from.

>  Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection
> to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually
> disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master".

First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]:
https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9

Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses
"master" for its main branch:
http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_on_top_of_a_different_changeset

But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"?
See the documentation about
master/slave repositories:
https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223

But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper:
https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2

So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy"
reference, but a straight up master/slave reference.

Did I get anything wrong there?

[1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch:
https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243ff86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-04 Thread Ernestas Kulik

On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 11:33 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 
> I don't have a good answer for this. I didn't find an explanation one
> way or the other, but there are uses of "slave copies" that aren't
> "copied from master" in Google, but usually not in
> recording/publishing
> fields.
> 
> I just don't know whether "slave copy" is implied in "master copy" or
> whether it's completely disconnected from the term. If it's
> completely
> disconnected, where does "mastering" come from?
> 
> Let me know if you find good etymologies for the verb "master". I
> couldn't think of any way that it wouldn't be related to a master
> copy
> and its "slave" copies.

I’m not willing to do research on this, but if you take a look at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio), it mentions that it’s
the process of preparing and transferring the final audio to a master
(canonical, original) storage device, which will serve as a template
for all future copies.

I don’t understand the obsession with pairing master-anything with
slaves. In this concrete example, the better analogy would be cloning -
the copies are, for all intents and purposes, identical to the one true
original.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-04 Thread drago01 via desktop-devel-list

On Saturday, May 4, 2019, Bastien Nocera  wrote:

> On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 01:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Carmen Bianca Bakker
> > :
> > > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > > > [...]
> > > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
> > > > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original",
> > > > "the one
> > > > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
> > > > "master/slave" relationship.
> > > >
> > > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short,
> > > > "master
> > > > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from
> > > > it
> > > > were "slave copies".
> > >
> > > This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit
> > > of
> > > logic for me. I can get on board with that.
> > > [...]
> >
> > Is this really true though? I never once heard of a "slave copy", so
> > I
> > just googled the word combination, yielding only 7.130 results, none
> > of which that I skimmed through relate to an actual "slave copy" as
> > in
> > "copied from master". All seem to deal with copying to
> > slave(-machines) or copies that slaves hold.
> > For comparison, "master copy" yields >> 542.000.000 results. So
> > either
> > the term slave copy does not exist at all, or it is very fringe and
> > has never been widely used or used recently.
> > Thinking about it, a 1:1 copy from master is still a master in its
> > own
> > right and completely identical to the pristine data it was copied
> > from. So there is really do dependency relationship here, as you
> > would
> > normally have in a traditional master<->slave pattern. All master
> > copies are equal in their "master-ness". So, having a slave copy
> > makes
> > no logical sense to me.
> > tl;dr: Is there some further reading on the usage of slave copy in
> > projects and its common etymology with master copy?
>
> I don't have a good answer for this. I didn't find an explanation one
> way or the other, but there are uses of "slave copies" that aren't
> "copied from master" in Google, but usually not in recording/publishing
> fields.
>
> I just don't know whether "slave copy" is implied in "master copy" or
> whether it's completely disconnected from the term. If it's completely
> disconnected, where does "mastering" come from?
>
> Let me know if you find good etymologies for the verb "master". I
> couldn't think of any way that it wouldn't be related to a master copy
> and its "slave" copies.
>
>
 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master

Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but not in the
context of master copy

"an original version of something from which copies can be made:" ..

this has no connection with slavery at all. Words have meanings based on
context - trying to make a connection to slavery where is none nor any
intent to do so is actually disrespectful to whomever named the default
branch "master".
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 01:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Carmen Bianca Bakker
> :
> > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > > [...]
> > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
> > > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original",
> > > "the one
> > > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
> > > "master/slave" relationship.
> > > 
> > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short,
> > > "master
> > > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from
> > > it
> > > were "slave copies".
> > 
> > This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit
> > of
> > logic for me. I can get on board with that.
> > [...]
> 
> Is this really true though? I never once heard of a "slave copy", so
> I
> just googled the word combination, yielding only 7.130 results, none
> of which that I skimmed through relate to an actual "slave copy" as
> in
> "copied from master". All seem to deal with copying to
> slave(-machines) or copies that slaves hold.
> For comparison, "master copy" yields >> 542.000.000 results. So
> either
> the term slave copy does not exist at all, or it is very fringe and
> has never been widely used or used recently.
> Thinking about it, a 1:1 copy from master is still a master in its
> own
> right and completely identical to the pristine data it was copied
> from. So there is really do dependency relationship here, as you
> would
> normally have in a traditional master<->slave pattern. All master
> copies are equal in their "master-ness". So, having a slave copy
> makes
> no logical sense to me.
> tl;dr: Is there some further reading on the usage of slave copy in
> projects and its common etymology with master copy?

I don't have a good answer for this. I didn't find an explanation one
way or the other, but there are uses of "slave copies" that aren't
"copied from master" in Google, but usually not in recording/publishing
fields.

I just don't know whether "slave copy" is implied in "master copy" or
whether it's completely disconnected from the term. If it's completely
disconnected, where does "mastering" come from?

Let me know if you find good etymologies for the verb "master". I
couldn't think of any way that it wouldn't be related to a master copy
and its "slave" copies.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 18:31 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:57 PM, Bastien Nocera  
> wrote:
> > Seriously Michael, you’re embarrassing yourself.
> 
> I don't feel very embarrassed. Your suggested alternative name,
> "main," 
> is clearly considered to be offensive by at least one of the very
> same 
> people who don't like "master," and who amazingly appears to be
> sincere 
> about this, so does it really still seem like a good option? We're
> not 
> going to accomplish much if we replace one apparently-offensive
> branch 
> name with another.
> 
> Keep trying... eventually we'll find something that is inoffensive.
> I 
> don't think anybody has complained about "trunk" yet. At least I
> don't 
> think elephants will be contributing to GNOME anytime soon.

The person you quoted is a troll. In fact, I'm not sure there's any
comments on that issue that aren't trolls (apart from the OP and the
repository owner).

This is the sort of comment that person made on another platform:
https://dev.to/rkfg/comment/6bj4
(yes, they're so useful that they just get removed, you can see
snippets of the transphobic nature of them in the full thread if you
want to read)

I don't think you want to align yourself with this person. The rest of
your interactions in this thread and the original thread are coming out
as disruptive for the sake of it. Is changing the default git branch
really something you feel strongly about?

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-03 Thread Roth Robert via desktop-devel-list

On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 2:31 AM  wrote:

> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:57 PM, Bastien Nocera 
> wrote:
> > Seriously Michael, you’re embarrassing yourself.
>
> I don't feel very embarrassed. Your suggested alternative name, "main,"
> is clearly considered to be offensive by at least one of the very same
> people who don't like "master," and who amazingly appears to be sincere
> about this, so does it really still seem like a good option? We're not
> going to accomplish much if we replace one apparently-offensive branch
> name with another.
>
> Keep trying... eventually we'll find something that is inoffensive. I
> don't think anybody has complained about "trunk" yet. At least I don't
> think elephants will be contributing to GNOME anytime soon.
>

Some options to consider:
- "unstable" - One of the examples Bastien has mentioned (in the mail
probably best summarizing this thread - thanks to him for that), who have
done the branch name change is Redis (and are in progress and discussions
for replacing the master-slave terminology everywhere), and they call their
main branch/default branch/primary branch (you know what I mean) "unstable"
[1]. That seems fair enough and inoffensive enough (in English and in the
other few languages I understand), the most offended could be the code
sitting there right after a stable release.
GNOME already uses the stable terminology, so unstable would also be "in
context", although not having the ma advantage Bastien mentioned.
- "development"/"develop" - beside the self-explanatory, and fairly
generically used "development branch", existing in all revision control
systems under one name or another [2].  People familiar with git flow are
only familiar with the "develop" branch, meaning the "unstable", code for
the latest development snapshot.

So I think there are options, if GNOME chooses to go down this path. (I
usually stand with defaults, so I'm ok with master, but I think I could
live with the change, if it happens)

Regards,
Robert

[1] https://github.com/antirez/redis
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_(version_control)#Development_branch
[3] https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

>
> Michael
>
>
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-03 Thread mcatanzaro

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:57 PM, Bastien Nocera  
wrote:

Seriously Michael, you’re embarrassing yourself.


I don't feel very embarrassed. Your suggested alternative name, "main," 
is clearly considered to be offensive by at least one of the very same 
people who don't like "master," and who amazingly appears to be sincere 
about this, so does it really still seem like a good option? We're not 
going to accomplish much if we replace one apparently-offensive branch 
name with another.


Keep trying... eventually we'll find something that is inoffensive. I 
don't think anybody has complained about "trunk" yet. At least I don't 
think elephants will be contributing to GNOME anytime soon.


Michael


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-03 Thread Matthias Klumpp

Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Carmen Bianca Bakker
:
>
> Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > [...]
> > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
> > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one
> > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
> > "master/slave" relationship.
> >
> > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master
> > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it
> > were "slave copies".
>
> This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of
> logic for me. I can get on board with that.
> [...]

Is this really true though? I never once heard of a "slave copy", so I
just googled the word combination, yielding only 7.130 results, none
of which that I skimmed through relate to an actual "slave copy" as in
"copied from master". All seem to deal with copying to
slave(-machines) or copies that slaves hold.
For comparison, "master copy" yields >> 542.000.000 results. So either
the term slave copy does not exist at all, or it is very fringe and
has never been widely used or used recently.
Thinking about it, a 1:1 copy from master is still a master in its own
right and completely identical to the pristine data it was copied
from. So there is really do dependency relationship here, as you would
normally have in a traditional master<->slave pattern. All master
copies are equal in their "master-ness". So, having a slave copy makes
no logical sense to me.
tl;dr: Is there some further reading on the usage of slave copy in
projects and its common etymology with master copy?

Cheers,
Matthias

-- 
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)



> On 4 May 2019, at 00:29, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:09 AM, Bastien Nocera  wrote:
>> - And to what?
>> A few possible names were mentioned/used. "mainline" was thought to
>> have strong connections to drug use, "release" (use in the contributor
>> covenant) seems to restrictive (we also do releases from other
>> branches). I like "main" because it keeps 2 letters from "master" so
>> diminishes the need to retrain your muscle memory. "trunk" definitely
>> makes sense when talking about branches but doesn't have the "ma"
>> advantage.
> 
> "main" seems like it should be safe, yet since you linked to 
> https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569 it 
> seems fair to quote the second comment there:
> 
>> "Main" suggests inequality, I'm against that.
> 
> So good luck finding an inoffensive name for the, er, primary branch. (I 
> probably shouldn't say "primary," though, since primacy also suggests 
> inequality)

Seriously Michael, you’re embarrassing yourself.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-03 Thread mcatanzaro

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 5:09 AM, Bastien Nocera  
wrote:

- And to what?

A few possible names were mentioned/used. "mainline" was thought to
have strong connections to drug use, "release" (use in the contributor
covenant) seems to restrictive (we also do releases from other
branches). I like "main" because it keeps 2 letters from "master" so
diminishes the need to retrain your muscle memory. "trunk" definitely
makes sense when talking about branches but doesn't have the "ma"
advantage.


"main" seems like it should be safe, yet since you linked to 
https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569 
it seems fair to quote the second comment there:



"Main" suggests inequality, I'm against that.


So good luck finding an inoffensive name for the, er, primary branch. 
(I probably shouldn't say "primary," though, since primacy also 
suggests inequality)


Michael


___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 15:35 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
> Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > > 

> > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
> > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the
> > one
> > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
> > "master/slave" relationship.
> > 
> > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short,
> > "master
> > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it
> > were "slave copies".
> 
> This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of
> logic for me. I can get on board with that.
> 
> Beyond just that logic, however, are there organisations who hold the
> same opinion? Affected people who do? That would be immensely
> valuable
> as rationale for making the change, beside this somewhat semantic
> argument.

I've quoted a few individuals who made this change in the original
mail, but I don't have more information here.

> > > The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only
> > > difference
> > > would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in
> > > internet
> > > comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it".
> > 
> > Because you think that it would be just the organisations being
> > smeared? Or that they would just be smeared? Sorry, I'm not
> > courageous
> > (or foolish) enough to even attempt that.
> 
> Maybe I'm misinterpreting. You said that doing this upstream would
> result in people being mad. I asserted that it's going to result in
> people being mad one way or another. I did not mean or imply anything
> other than that, and do not see how this statement can be interpreted
> otherwise.

It's mostly about the size and reach of the people "being mad", and the
target audience. When GNOME adopts a full code of conduct for online
behaviour (our current one is only for events), I don't expect it to
cause the same sort of response from the wider community as when the
Linux kernel did. Or when Python removed the "master/slave" terms from
its code base.

> In any case, thank you, you've convinced me. I stand by most of what
> I've said, but I can kind of see the connection to the practice of
> slavery more clearly.
>
> If the change can be done transparently (i.e., nobody needs to lift a
> finger, as said in the thread), I don't have any strong objections
> against the change. Otherwise I'd urge to balance the gains against
> the
> pains.



___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-03 Thread Carmen Bianca Bakker

Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps
> > being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments
> > are
> > being made as to _why_ this is.
> > 
> > Specifically, this question needs an answer:
> > 
> > Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged
> > term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors?
> > 
> > Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally
> > tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery?
> > 
> > It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to
> > the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot
> > personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in
> > isolation.
> 
> If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
> "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one
> medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
> "master/slave" relationship.
> 
> There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master
> copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it
> were "slave copies".

This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of
logic for me. I can get on board with that.

Beyond just that logic, however, are there organisations who hold the
same opinion? Affected people who do? That would be immensely valuable
as rationale for making the change, beside this somewhat semantic
argument.

> > Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about
> > managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable
> > analogy.
> 
> I merely said that it existed, an exception to the rule. I didn't
> mention it as an analogy, and I'm not sure why you would read it as
> that.

I interpreted that line as being "the master branch isn't usually
paired up with the word 'slave', except in 'gitslave'". I guess that is
the source of confusion.

> > The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary
> > should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me.
> 
> Explaining that the connection is tenuous isn't the same thing as
> repeatedly being told that it's invalid because it's not valid to the
> person sending the email. It's the latter that I mind.

Agreed.

> > > made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go
> > > down
> > > about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6].
> > 
> > I still believe that this would be a valuable endeavour if the
> > premise
> > is true. Maybe I'm naive, but if the premise is true and the word
> > "master" negatively affects people, then doing this upstream would
> > beneficially impact more people than if this were done just in GNOME.
> > 
> > It would also reduce the pain of breaking a default.
> > 
> > The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only
> > difference
> > would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet
> > comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it".
> 
> Because you think that it would be just the organisations being
> smeared? Or that they would just be smeared? Sorry, I'm not courageous
> (or foolish) enough to even attempt that.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting. You said that doing this upstream would
result in people being mad. I asserted that it's going to result in
people being mad one way or another. I did not mean or imply anything
other than that, and do not see how this statement can be interpreted
otherwise.

In any case, thank you, you've convinced me. I stand by most of what
I've said, but I can kind of see the connection to the practice of
slavery more clearly.

If the change can be done transparently (i.e., nobody needs to lift a
finger, as said in the thread), I don't have any strong objections
against the change. Otherwise I'd urge to balance the gains against the
pains.

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-03 Thread Michael Hill via desktop-devel-list

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:08 AM Carmen Bianca Bakker
 wrote:

> The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only difference
> would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet
> comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it".

Better us than them, because they may not be used to it?

It was suggested that this was US sensibilities gone wrong (it wasn't
initiated from the US), and a response was that it's "wildly
farfetched by US standards." Hopefully GNOME can set the standards bar
a little higher and lead by example.

Mike
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 14:07 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
> Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 12:09 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > - Why?
> > 
> > For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references.
> > Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the
> > "gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation,
> > and
> > some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change.
> 
> Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps
> being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments
> are
> being made as to _why_ this is.
> 
> Specifically, this question needs an answer:
> 
> Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged
> term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors?
> 
> Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally
> tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery?
> 
> It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to
> the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot
> personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in
> isolation.

If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
"master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one
medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
"master/slave" relationship.

There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master
copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it
were "slave copies".

I also linked to this:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy
which shows when the term started being used (eg. it doesn't predate or
descend from a term from the middle ages).

I couldn't find reference to why "mastering" was called "mastering",
but I also could not find any hints that it wasn't connected to
"master/slave".

> Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about
> managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable
> analogy.

I merely said that it existed, an exception to the rule. I didn't
mention it as an analogy, and I'm not sure why you would read it as
that.

> > I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up
> > "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we
> > don't need any more comments about whether the negative
> > connotations of
> > "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture.
> > 
> > I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references
> > where it is the case.
> 
> I can appreciate this sentiment (I've been asking for the exact same
> thing the entire time), but this line of reasoning doesn't really
> hold:
> The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary
> should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me.

Explaining that the connection is tenuous isn't the same thing as
repeatedly being told that it's invalid because it's not valid to the
person sending the email. It's the latter that I mind.

> I suppose what that paragraph should have said is that the opinions
> of
> those negatively affected are prioritised, owing to the simple fact
> that they are negatively affected. That makes more sense to me.
> 
> > - Why not in git directly?
> > 
> > Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this
> > in a
> > welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline
> > comments
> > made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go
> > down
> > about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6].
> 
> I still believe that this would be a valuable endeavour if the
> premise
> is true. Maybe I'm naive, but if the premise is true and the word
> "master" negatively affects people, then doing this upstream would
> beneficially impact more people than if this were done just in GNOME.
> 
> It would also reduce the pain of breaking a default.
> 
> The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only
> difference
> would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet
> comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it".

Because you think that it would be just the organisations being
smeared? Or that they would just be smeared? Sorry, I'm not courageous
(or foolish) enough to even attempt that.

Think of what this process is as inspiration to others.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-03 Thread Carmen Bianca Bakker

Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 12:09 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> - Why?
> 
> For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references.
> Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the
> "gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation, and
> some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change.

Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps
being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments are
being made as to _why_ this is.

Specifically, this question needs an answer:

Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged
term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors?

Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally
tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery?

It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to
the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot
personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in
isolation.

Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about
managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable
analogy.

> I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up
> "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we
> don't need any more comments about whether the negative connotations of
> "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture.
> 
> I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references
> where it is the case.

I can appreciate this sentiment (I've been asking for the exact same
thing the entire time), but this line of reasoning doesn't really hold:
The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary
should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me.

I suppose what that paragraph should have said is that the opinions of
those negatively affected are prioritised, owing to the simple fact
that they are negatively affected. That makes more sense to me.

> - Why not in git directly?
> 
> Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this in a
> welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline comments
> made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go down
> about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6].

I still believe that this would be a valuable endeavour if the premise
is true. Maybe I'm naive, but if the premise is true and the word
"master" negatively affects people, then doing this upstream would
beneficially impact more people than if this were done just in GNOME.

It would also reduce the pain of breaking a default.

The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only difference
would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet
comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it".

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 08:36 +0200, Daniel Mustieles García via desktop-
devel-list wrote:
> The problem is that he is not only writting a summary. He has renamed
> master branch in GitLab, he has noticed people in Ubuntu about this
> change, he has ignored us when we have said his arguments about
> Python, Django, etc were not valid, he has ignored what most of the
> people in this thread has said... that's not just a summary and
> that's not just a proposal. The change was done before opening this
> thread.

The thread is about "GNOME modules" in general, not about Geary.
Whatever happened with Geary is a different matter, and there are
threads related to that which you can probably reply to.

He also hasn't ignored you, or others, he's trying to figure out how to
respond to walls of text and dubious pushback, which I'm helping with.

Also, is there still a problem translating Geary using Damned Lies now?
If there is, reply to the original thread, or file a sysadmin bug. It
will be interesting as a test case for mass migration.

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 12:48 +0100, Richard Hughes via desktop-devel-
list wrote:
> 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.

This thread isn't just about git branches. Here's the original mail for
reference:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-April/msg00049.html

In particular:
"
The scope would be to replace occurrences of the terms appearing in the
user interface, web sites, documentation, APIs (except as deprecated
symbols), and git repositories - essentially wherever a person using or
developing software for GNOME may reasonably encounter them.
"

___
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

2019-05-03 Thread Benjamin Berg

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:58 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 21:52, Michael Gratton  wrote:
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:48, Richard Hughes  
> > wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the Python 
> change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of using 
> another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's not the 
> pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in isolation that 
> is.
> 
> Further, this proposal is actually covers changing fewer terms than 
> Python did, and hence is more conservative in that respect.
> 
> Please, actually read it: 

It looks to me like all replaced references are references which
contain process relationships; in most cases the managed process was
called a "slave", but there were various exception in which the term
"master" was still changed. But this is already very sensible simply
for consistency reasons.

A number of comments–including ones by the original reporter–actually
deem the term "master" to be unproblematic in other contexts and even
mentioning the specific case of git. See
  https://bugs.python.org/issue34605#msg324747
I did not find a comment in the mentioned issue that argues that the
git branch name is problematic.

Benjamin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:46 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to formally propose as a GNOME Goal that GNOME modules
> replace references to the terms "master" and "slave". [...] The scope
> would be to replace occurrences of the terms appearing [...] git
> repositories

I don't think it makes sense to carry on the unfocused discussion in
the original thread to talk about:
Replacing "master" reference in git branches
as the subject line says.

- Why?

For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references.
Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the
"gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation, and
some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change.

Is "master" as in "master copy" as tainted? Given that "master copy" is
a recent term[3], it came to be in a world where the end of slavery[4]
was still in living memory, I don't think the answer is as clear cut as
some of the threads made it out to be.

GNOME wouldn't be the first to make this change[1][2], but probably the
most significant yet. We've been the first, or amongst the first, for a
number of initiatives, and shown our progressiveness.

I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up
"master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we
don't need any more comments about whether the negative connotations of
"master" alone don't apply in your language or culture.

I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references
where it is the case.

- How?

It is possible to rename the "master" branch in git. It's also possible
to add a "link" of sorts so that software that specifically references
"master" can be made to work with the new name[5].

If GNOME chooses to keep the compatibility name, we'll probably need to
start filing bugs in some pieces of software that think the 2 branch
names are separate branches (GitLab being one of them). This would help
other software adopt new default branch names, and fix corner cases for
everyone else.

In short, you, the user, the developer, the checkouter, shouldn't need
to even lift a finger.

- Why not in git directly?

Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this in a
welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline comments
made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go down
about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6].

- And to what?

A few possible names were mentioned/used. "mainline" was thought to
have strong connections to drug use, "release" (use in the contributor
covenant) seems to restrictive (we also do releases from other
branches). I like "main" because it keeps 2 letters from "master" so
diminishes the need to retrain your muscle memory. "trunk" definitely
makes sense when talking about branches but doesn't have the "ma"
advantage.

- Next steps

The GNOME community needs to decide whether this change can be done.
Most of the original thread was specifically about the git branch name
change, and changing lone "master" references is where most of the
opposition was.

I expect Michael to send a recap mail about "master/slave" references
in the original thread shortly.

Cheers

[1]:
https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-424896149
[2]: https://miklb.com/blog/2017/08/29/deprecating-the-term-git-master/
[3]: See the "Trends" section at
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy
[4]: "the abolition of slavery in the western world", it's hard to be concise
yet precise in cases like this
[5]: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-April/msg00113.html
[6]: I wouldn't read this if I were you:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+coc

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 08:47 +0200, Daniel Mustieles García via desktop-
devel-list wrote:
> 
> 
> El mié., 1 may. 2019 a las 14:39, Michael Gratton ()
> escribió:
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:30, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
> >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make
> > this
> > > change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this
> > > change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their
> > master
> > > branch, so it's a disingenuous example.
> > 
> > I never claimed that, so I'm actually the one being mis-
> > represented 
> > here. :)
> 
> YOU DID. You've argued we should change master branch name because
> Python, Django, Rust did it. You've mixed two concepts: the use of
> master/slave terms in source code and the name of the master branch.
> Please don't fall in victimism, you have done wrong and you should
> fix it.
> 
> You are completely free to change every "master" appearance in your
> source code if you want so, but you shouldn't change master branch's
> name, we have explained why several times.
> 
> > I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term 
> > "master", and we should do the same.

This thread isn't just about git branches, that's just what you used to
derail the thread and yell at Michael early on.

Here's the original mail for reference:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-April/msg00049.html

In particular:
"
The scope would be to replace occurrences of the terms appearing in the
user interface, web sites, documentation, APIs (except as deprecated
symbols), and git repositories - essentially wherever a person using or
developing software for GNOME may reasonably encounter them.
"

___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

2019-05-03 Thread Daniel Mustieles García via desktop-devel-list

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 10:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:08 AM, Michael Gratton  wrote:
> > This has already been covered in the original proposal under 
> > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, 
> > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the
> > people 
> > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These
> > are 
> > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms,
> > and 
> > it is the project that loses out in the end.
> 
> You've yet to provide any evidence for this. We're asking for
> evidence 
> because it is *extremely* difficult to believe. You're losing us
> here.
> 
> > To address some of your points directly however, this censorship
> > in 
> > as much as the CoC is censorship, and as much as you already 
> > self-censor when choosing names for things in projects you 
> > participate in. That is to say, not actually censorship at all. In 
> > fact, you can see this proposal as simply aiming to extend the CoC
> > to 
> > our documentation, API, and development infrastructure.
> 
> Michael, the events CoC is a reasonable CoC written by reasonable 
> people designed to ensure we treat each other reasonably well. It
> has 
> broad support -- perhaps not universal, but at least pretty broad -- 
> from the GNOME community because we mostly all agree it is
> reasonable.

Our code of conduct isn't a direct descendant of the contributor
covenant, but it's still widely used in our community, including the
Linux kernel:
https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/blob/release/static/adopters.csv
and its master branch name was changed:
https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/569#issuecomment-424896149

I quote so you don't have to read the issue that's of similar tone to
this thread:
"
The main branch is now called 'release'. Thank you for pointing this
out. (And I wish that GIthub would make something like this the
default.)
"

> What you're proposing is not reasonable. It's really not. There's no 
> way you're going to convince the community that we should avoid 
> commonly-used words that are generally considered inoffensive, just 
> because a small minority might feel otherwise

Re-read this sentence a bunch of times, it's pretty much the opposite
of what our community stands for. Offensiveness isn't a popularity
contest.

>  (which, in this case, is 
> hard to believe, but I suppose people are not always reasonable).

This is uncalled for.

> If you want to help make the GNOME community more inclusive in a
> more 
> productive way, you could, for example, work on generalizing the
> events 
> CoC to apply to all GNOME community interactions, like this mailing 
> list, rather than just specific in-person events. I would suspect
> that 
> would have broad support.

That's already being worked though, isn't it? I don't see why we can't
work on both.

___
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

El mié., 1 may. 2019 a las 14:39, Michael Gratton () escribió:

> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:30, Carmen Bianca Bakker
>  wrote:
> >
> > I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make this
> > change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this
> > change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their master
> > branch, so it's a disingenuous example.
>
> I never claimed that, so I'm actually the one being mis-represented
> here. :)
>

YOU DID. You've argued we should change master branch name because Python,
Django, Rust did it. You've mixed two concepts: the use of master/slave
terms in source code and the name of the master branch. Please don't fall
in victimism, you have done wrong and you should fix it.

You are completely free to change every "master" appearance in your source
code if you want so, but you shouldn't change master branch's name, we have
explained why several times.

> I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term
> "master", and we should do the same.
>
> //Mike
>
> --
> ⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
> ⚙ 
>
>
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
___
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

2019-05-03 Thread Daniel Mustieles García via desktop-devel-list

El mié., 1 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Ask Hjorth Larsen ()
escribió:

> Am Mi., 1. Mai 2019 um 01:07 Uhr schrieb Michael Gratton :
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 17:53, Daniel Mustieles García
> >  wrote:
> > > What has happened with this? We have a repo with a non-standard
> > > branch name and no consensus for a global change, do we?
> >
> > Just trying to find the time to write up a summary of where we are at
> > and a draft plan to move forward.
>
> But the argument that a master branch would imply slavery was not
> convincing to me and many others.  Why, then, is work in this
> direction apparently continuing?
>

Not only is continuing, we have left an open door for other maintainers to
do this same change (okay, having a symlink named master poiting to the new
branch name).

>
> I think everyone is willing to go to reasonable lengths to avoid
> direct references to actual offensive terms.  But there were many
> objections to this change.  Some are practical and will persist even
> if the change does not cause errors (non-conformity to a reasonable
> default, learning/tutorials, ...).  Another reason why a lot of us
> don't like this change, I think, is that we are also users of the
> English language and don't much appreciate being told how to think:
> Using the word 'inclusive' all the while steamrolling extremely
> specific and far-fetched ideas of some US movement upon a broad
> international community is frankly not a prime example of
> inclusiveness in my book.  What distinguishes this from the direct
> 'slavery' case is that you actually need to point to a long list of
> meanings in the Dictionary, then pick and choose.  This is outside the
> scope of 'going to reasonable lengths'.
>
> I nominate the simplest plan for 'moving forward'.
>
> Best regards
> Ask
>
> >
> > Oh that though, Daniel, I asked you back on the i18n thread when the
> > last time you had a problem working on Geary's translations with
> > Damned-Lies, but you never got back to me. Can you say when that was?
> > If you have a specific date that would be super helpful.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > //Mike
> >
> > --
> > ⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
> > ⚙ 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>
___
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

2019-05-03 Thread Daniel Mustieles García via desktop-devel-list

El mié., 1 may. 2019 a las 1:06, Michael Gratton () escribió:

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 17:53, Daniel Mustieles García
>  wrote:
> > What has happened with this? We have a repo with a non-standard
> > branch name and no consensus for a global change, do we?
>
> Just trying to find the time to write up a summary of where we are at
> and a draft plan to move forward.
>
> Oh that though, Daniel, I asked you back on the i18n thread when the
> last time you had a problem working on Geary's translations with
> Damned-Lies, but you never got back to me. Can you say when that was?
> If you have a specific date that would be super helpful.
>

Didn't see that message, sorry. Don't remember the specific day it failed.

>
> Cheers,
> //Mike
>
> --
> ⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
> ⚙ 
>
>
>
___
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

2019-05-03 Thread Daniel Mustieles García via desktop-devel-list

El mié., 1 may. 2019 a las 4:58, Germán Poo-Caamaño ()
escribió:

> On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 03:49 +0200, Ask Hjorth Larsen via desktop-devel-
> list wrote:
> > Am Mi., 1. Mai 2019 um 01:07 Uhr schrieb Michael Gratton <
> > m...@vee.net>:
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 17:53, Daniel Mustieles García
> > >  wrote:
> > > > What has happened with this? We have a repo with a non-standard
> > > > branch name and no consensus for a global change, do we?
> > >
> > > Just trying to find the time to write up a summary of where we are
> > > at
> > > and a draft plan to move forward.
> >
> > But the argument that a master branch would imply slavery was not
> > convincing to me and many others.  Why, then, is work in this
> > direction apparently continuing?
>
> Michael is free to write a summary of the thread when he pleases, as
> well as he is free to write a proposal draft to move forward as he
> pleases. He does not need to convince you or me. He is a free person.
>

The problem is that he is not only writting a summary. He has renamed
master branch in GitLab, he has noticed people in Ubuntu about this change,
he has ignored us when we have said his arguments about Python, Django, etc
were not valid, he has ignored what most of the people in this thread has
said... that's not just a summary and that's not just a proposal. The
change was done before opening this thread.

>
> --
> Germán Poo-Caamaño
> https://calcifer.org/
>
>
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
___
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

2019-05-02 Thread Benjamin Berg

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 15:53 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
> Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 23:31 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 15:19, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
> > 
> > > > I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the
> > > > term
> > > >  "master", and we should do the same.
> > > 
> > > We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
> > > problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
> > > disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT
> > > related
> > > to Git.
> > 
> > Because this has been addressed several times over already. From 
> > tonight alone:
> > 
> > > This has already been covered in the original proposal under 
> > > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, 
> > > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people 
> > > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are 
> > > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and 
> > > it is the project that loses out in the end.
> 
> You didn't demonstrate this. I suggested various ways to demonstrate
> this in a previous e-mail in this thread, but you completely ignored
> it.

To be honest, I would also be interested in exactly such a
demonstration.

In this thread people were somewhat rightfully called out for lines of
reasoning that were not applicable to the problem at hand for various
reasons. Yet, it seems that the original line of reasoning in favour of
this change has similar issues, and even when asked for it no further
evidence has apparently been provided.

It is fair to say that the only thing that matters in your view is
whether there is a group of people who is affected by this. However,
this is a point that can be studied to some extend, yet it *appears*
like we are only second guessing that the term "master" as used in this
context is problematic for a group of people who we don't actually know
much about. Yet this assumption is essential to whole argument and the
conclusion that changing the name will make GNOME more inclusive.

Now, maybe there is information available (maybe even in this thread
already, I have *not* read the whole thread). But the current responses
are evasive rather than producing the relevant evidence.

> You keep asserting this to be true, but never back it up with
> anything
> other than references to other projects who renamed various instances
> of the word "master" (and "slave"), but none of them renamed the Git
> master branch. It's a false equivalence.
> 
> Moreover, it's not enough to demonstrate that the word "master"
> sucks—it does. Rather, it needs to be demonstrated that the word—in
> this specific context(!!!)—is actively harmful and/or prevents
> contributions from people who object to its use.
> 
> > > In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the 
> > > Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances
> > > of 
> > > using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved.
> > > It's 
> > > not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in 
> > > isolation that is.
> > 
> > It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of 
> > "slave" by itself alone.
> 
> This is not a charitable argument at all. There are uses of the word
> "master" that are not—in any way, shape or form—related to the
> practice
> of slavery. No such arguments can be made for the word "slave".
> 
> I'm getting a bit tired of this back-and-forth, though. You don't
> want
> to entertain any argument against changing the name of the master
> branch at all, asserting that the word is completely verboten and any
> instance of it might harm the inclusivity of GNOME. You write off
> these
> arguments because they affect a group for whom you appear to speak,
> but
> you haven't demonstrated that this group exists, or that their
> interests align with what you claim.
> 
> So I'm withdrawing conversation, because I've already said my bit a
> few
> times over and have been ignored a few times over. In summary, please
> consider:
> 
> - Contacting several organisations who have more expertise on this
> subject to inform our next steps.
> 
> - Contacting Git upstream (or places like GitHub/GitLab, why not) to
> change the name of the default branch.
> 
> With kindness,
> Carmen
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Calum Benson via desktop-devel-list

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 02:46, Michael Gratton  wrote:
> 
> I deliberately chose "mainline" for Geary's mainline branch name because it 
> has the same auto-complete prefix as "master", for example. Want to check out 
> the mainline branch? Just type "git co m", just like you always have. 
> Lastly, if adopted project-wide, then we'd all get used to the new names 
> rather quicky. Finally, to respond to (3) I am proposing it project-wide now.

Pretty much the only definition of "mainline" (as a single word) in English is 
as a verb with drug-taking connotations. Is that really a big improvement?

Cheers,
Calum.
___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Olav Vitters

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 02:02:43PM +0200, jtojnar--- via desktop-devel-list 
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr, 2019 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Playfair Cal via desktop-devel-list
>  wrote:
> > "master/slave" -> "leader/follower"
> 
> Please note that leader/follower terms are commonly associated with
> exploitation of people by cults and should be avoided as well.

Within Salsa leader/follower is commonly used. Also often man/woman,
but leader/follower is more inclusive than man/woman as it doesn't
really matter who leads.

I read later in the thread the leader concept has bad associations in
German. This while the word has been introduced with good intentions
(within Salsa) as to be more inclusive (plus more accurate).

Renaming the master branch only within GNOME is a bit odd. As mentioned,
master has multiple meanings. For the branch there's a different
meaning. Mainline also has multiple meanings. If I ignore the ones which
make sense there's also various non-inclusive meanings of mainline. The
whole proposal feels like grasping at straws IMO.

I don't read every email but why not propose such a change to git? Why
only GNOME?

-- 
Regards,
Olav
___
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, May 1, 2019, 15:24 Michael Gratton  wrote:

> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:32, Ernestas Kulik 
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:38 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> >>
> >>  After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive,
> >>  Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of
> >>  core
> >>  devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example,
> >>  in
> >>  the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core
> >> devs.
> >>
> >>  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.
> >>  GNOME
> >>  could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty
> >>  clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get
> >>  others moving as well.
> >
> > To make a counterpoint: The GNOME Foundation straight up hired women
> > to
> > hold positions of leadership, and I don’t remember seeing a big
> > effort
> > to become inclusive. Rather, there was “just” someone generous
> > enough
> > to donate big money that allowed to get people onboard and pay them
> > for
> > their time.
>
> You may have missed then that Outreachy started off as the GNOME
> Outreach Program for Women:  :)
>
> The Impact section there is a particularly good read about the positive
> impact of inclusivity programs, in this case, for women.
>

That is absolutely true, it slipped my mind completely.

>
___
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

2019-05-01 Thread David Woodhouse

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 23:31 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of 
> "slave" by itself alone.

What a completely bizarre thing to say.

The word "slave" doesn't have a whole slew of homonyms with different
meanings. Only one verb.

So where "slave" has been used, it often does have the connotation that
you want to Bowdlerise. While the various other words spelled "master"
don't have that connotation at all.

If you don't understand the distinction, you really don't seem to have
been listening at all.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Daniel Playfair Cal via desktop-devel-list

Je ĵaŭ, 2019-05-02 je 01:10 +1000, Daniel Playfair Cal skribis:
> As English speakers, we choose how our language evolves. It is a choice to 
> keep using a word just as it is a choice to swap it for a new one. It is not 
> censorship to make a choice one way or the other. Nobody in this thread has 
> suggested that anyone should be sent to jail for talking about the master 
> branch (or any such thing). If changing the word we use is censorship, then 
> continuing with the word we have must also be censorship. The only important 
> question is which word is better to use today and in the future.

I never mentioned the word censorship.

> There is obviously not going to be statistically bulletproof data for whether 
> renaming a branch increases contributions, or has any other specific effect. 
> There are too many variables to measure it reliably.

I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for at least _some_ kind of
demonstration or rationale, because none has been provided, other than
the assertion that the word "master" is inherently tied to the practice
of slavery, and therefore must be harmful to the inclusivity of GNOME.

I do not agree with that assertion. Merely saying it does not make it
true.

>  But it is also obvious that making an effort to use language that does not 
> exclude certain groups is likely to increase participation.

Agreed, but I never said otherwise.

> There are many people and groups that face oppression today or have in the 
> recent past and it is important to be sensitive to that. I think 
> acknowledging this is not some sort of insane joke or "extreme" point of 
> view, it is simply basic kindness and understanding for other people and 
> their experience. If this particular issue seems irrelevant to you, that does 
> not mean it is irrelevant for everyone - and it is not a strong argument 
> either way. Whoever you are, there are words and ideas that will remind you 
> of bad things and make you uncomfortable, and its normal and reasonable for 
> others to make a small effort to avoid these when they are not relevant.

Agreed, but I never said any of those things.

I don't know if any of those statements were aimed at me or were just
general observations. If they were aimed at me, please read my messages
and interpret them charitably before writing. I feel like I'm being
strawmanned into having said things that I did not.

If there was any confusion:

I want GNOME to be a welcoming, inclusive project. I think it's okay
and desirable that GNOME take steps to change things around to make it
more inclusive. I just don't think that the name of the default branch
is problematic to the extent that it warrants changing.

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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

Just a few comments I think are worth making:

   - The word "master" as in master branch is an synonym/analogy/reference,
   not a coincidence. Language develops together with history, and the
   meanings of words constantly evolve. If a word has multiple meanings, it is
   usually because the word "forked" at some point as related or more specific
   concepts diverged from an older concept. "master" I think is such a word -
   it can mean various different things as has been discussed, but they are
   all related concepts. It is unreasonable to say that master as in "master
   copy" is related to master as in slave driver by pure coincidence. There
   was no CEO of English that rolled a dice one day and thus decided that the
   word for an authoritative copy would be the same as that used for a slave
   driver. It seems obvious to me that the two meanings are different sides of
   the same coin. Perhaps when the fork happened, "authority" was more a
   synonym for "truth" than it is now. On that basis, it is relevant that
   other projects have removed their use of the terms master/slave, and that
   apparently it or similar efforts had a positive effect.
   - As English speakers, we choose how our language evolves. It is a
   choice to keep using a word just as it is a choice to swap it for a new
   one. It is not censorship to make a choice one way or the other. Nobody in
   this thread has suggested that anyone should be sent to jail for talking
   about the master branch (or any such thing). If changing the word we use is
   censorship, then continuing with the word we have must also be censorship.
   The only important question is which word is better to use today and in the
   future.
   - There is obviously not going to be statistically bulletproof data for
   whether renaming a branch increases contributions, or has any other
   specific effect. There are too many variables to measure it reliably. But
   it is also obvious that making an effort to use language that does not
   exclude certain groups is likely to increase participation.
   - There are many people and groups that face oppression today or have in
   the recent past and it is important to be sensitive to that. I think
   acknowledging this is not some sort of insane joke or "extreme" point of
   view, it is simply basic kindness and understanding for other people and
   their experience. If this particular issue seems irrelevant to you, that
   does not mean it is irrelevant for everyone - and it is not a strong
   argument either way. Whoever you are, there are words and ideas that will
   remind you of bad things and make you uncomfortable, and its normal and
   reasonable for others to make a small effort to avoid these when they are
   not relevant.


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:54 PM Carmen Bianca Bakker 
wrote:

> Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 23:31 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 15:19, Carmen Bianca Bakker
> > 
> > > > I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term
> > > >  "master", and we should do the same.
> > >
> > > We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
> > > problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
> > > disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
> > > to Git.
> >
> > Because this has been addressed several times over already. From
> > tonight alone:
> >
> > > This has already been covered in the original proposal under
> > > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed,
> > > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people
> > > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are
> > > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and
> > > it is the project that loses out in the end.
>
> You didn't demonstrate this. I suggested various ways to demonstrate
> this in a previous e-mail in this thread, but you completely ignored
> it.
>
> You keep asserting this to be true, but never back it up with anything
> other than references to other projects who renamed various instances
> of the word "master" (and "slave"), but none of them renamed the Git
> master branch. It's a false equivalence.
>
> Moreover, it's not enough to demonstrate that the word "master"
> sucks—it does. Rather, it needs to be demonstrated that the word—in
> this specific context(!!!)—is actively harmful and/or prevents
> contributions from people who object to its use.
>
> > > In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the
> > > Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of
> > > using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's
> > > not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in
> > > isolation that is.
> >
> > It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of
> > "slave" by itself alone.
>
> This is not a charitable argument at all. There are uses of the word
> "master" that are

Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules

2019-05-01 Thread mcatanzaro


On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:08 AM, Michael Gratton  wrote:
This has already been covered in the original proposal under 
objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, 
what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people 
who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are 
the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and 
it is the project that loses out in the end.


You've yet to provide any evidence for this. We're asking for evidence 
because it is *extremely* difficult to believe. You're losing us here.


To address some of your points directly however, this censorship in 
as much as the CoC is censorship, and as much as you already 
self-censor when choosing names for things in projects you 
participate in. That is to say, not actually censorship at all. In 
fact, you can see this proposal as simply aiming to extend the CoC to 
our documentation, API, and development infrastructure.


Michael, the events CoC is a reasonable CoC written by reasonable 
people designed to ensure we treat each other reasonably well. It has 
broad support -- perhaps not universal, but at least pretty broad -- 
from the GNOME community because we mostly all agree it is reasonable.


What you're proposing is not reasonable. It's really not. There's no 
way you're going to convince the community that we should avoid 
commonly-used words that are generally considered inoffensive, just 
because a small minority might feel otherwise (which, in this case, is 
hard to believe, but I suppose people are not always reasonable).


If you want to help make the GNOME community more inclusive in a more 
productive way, you could, for example, work on generalizing the events 
CoC to apply to all GNOME community interactions, like this mailing 
list, rather than just specific in-person events. I would suspect that 
would have broad support.


Michael


___
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

2019-05-01 Thread mcatanzaro

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:22 AM, Tristan Van Berkom 
 wrote:

We should also not show favoritism of one set of cultural values over
another, I feel that censorship to this degree is a very western
concept which we should not lend any credit to. Ask has already 
pointed
out that the possible offensiveness of the word 'master' on it's own 
is
even more particular to the USA, I cannot speak to the veracity of 
this

but I do suspect that this is pandering specifically to US
sensitivities, which I also do not agree with.


It's not a "US sensitivity," it's really not. I assure you this 
proposal is wildly farfetched by US standards. I know it is intended as 
a serious proposal, but it reads more as joke or parody and as such 
it's really, really hard to take seriously.


Michael


___
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

Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 23:31 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 15:19, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
> 
> > > I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term
> > >  "master", and we should do the same.
> > 
> > We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
> > problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
> > disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
> > to Git.
> 
> Because this has been addressed several times over already. From 
> tonight alone:
> 
> > This has already been covered in the original proposal under 
> > objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, 
> > what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people 
> > who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are 
> > the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and 
> > it is the project that loses out in the end.

You didn't demonstrate this. I suggested various ways to demonstrate
this in a previous e-mail in this thread, but you completely ignored
it.

You keep asserting this to be true, but never back it up with anything
other than references to other projects who renamed various instances
of the word "master" (and "slave"), but none of them renamed the Git
master branch. It's a false equivalence.

Moreover, it's not enough to demonstrate that the word "master"
sucks—it does. Rather, it needs to be demonstrated that the word—in
this specific context(!!!)—is actively harmful and/or prevents
contributions from people who object to its use.

> > In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the 
> > Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of 
> > using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's 
> > not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in 
> > isolation that is.
> 
> It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of 
> "slave" by itself alone.

This is not a charitable argument at all. There are uses of the word
"master" that are not—in any way, shape or form—related to the practice
of slavery. No such arguments can be made for the word "slave".

I'm getting a bit tired of this back-and-forth, though. You don't want
to entertain any argument against changing the name of the master
branch at all, asserting that the word is completely verboten and any
instance of it might harm the inclusivity of GNOME. You write off these
arguments because they affect a group for whom you appear to speak, but
you haven't demonstrated that this group exists, or that their
interests align with what you claim.

So I'm withdrawing conversation, because I've already said my bit a few
times over and have been ignored a few times over. In summary, please
consider:

- Contacting several organisations who have more expertise on this
subject to inform our next steps.

- Contacting Git upstream (or places like GitHub/GitLab, why not) to
change the name of the default branch.

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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, May 1, 2019 at 15:19, Carmen Bianca Bakker 




I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term
 "master", and we should do the same.


We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
to Git.


Because this has been addressed several times over already. From 
tonight alone:


This has already been covered in the original proposal under 
objection (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, 
what actually doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people 
who have been affected by the language we use that matter. These are 
the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms, and 
it is the project that loses out in the end.


And:

In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the 
Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of 
using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's 
not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in 
isolation that is.


It is telling that no one is complaining about replacing uses of 
"slave" by itself alone.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
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, May 1, 2019 at 14:32, Ernestas Kulik  
wrote:

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:38 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:


 After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive,
 Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of
 core
 devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example,
 in
 the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core 
devs.


 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.
 GNOME
 could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty
 clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get
 others moving as well.


To make a counterpoint: The GNOME Foundation straight up hired women 
to
hold positions of leadership, and I don’t remember seeing a big 
effort
to become inclusive. Rather, there was “just” someone generous 
enough
to donate big money that allowed to get people onboard and pay them 
for

their time.


You may have missed then that Outreachy started off as the GNOME 
Outreach Program for Women:  :)


The Impact section there is a particularly good read about the positive 
impact of inclusivity programs, in this case, for women.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
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

Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 22:38 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:30, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
>  wrote:
> > I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make this
> > change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this
> > change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their master
> > branch, so it's a disingenuous example.
> 
> I never claimed that, so I'm actually the one being mis-represented 
> here. :)

Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but that's how it was interpreted.

> I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term 
> "master", and we should do the same.

We should. But not all instances of "master" are equally
problematic—that's the main debate here. I don't see anybody here
disagreeing against replacing instances of master that are NOT related
to Git.

But you didn't respond to anything else in my response.

With kindness,
Carmen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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, 2019-05-01 at 15:03 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels via desktop-
devel-list wrote:
> 
> Numbers please? For example how many contributors GNOME has lost last
> year?
> Do you speak about one or two people? Hundreds people? More?

To be fair, I think that even losing one or two could have a ripple
effect - word of mouth can be really powerful. An anecdote is my
closest friends being indirectly involved, as I just don’t stop yapping
about things I’m passionate about.

___
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, May 1, 2019 at 14:30, Carmen Bianca Bakker 
 wrote:


I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make this
change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this
change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their master
branch, so it's a disingenuous example.


I never claimed that, so I'm actually the one being mis-represented 
here. :)


I did however point out that Python has replaced uses of the term 
"master", and we should do the same.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
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


Hi Günther,

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:16, Günther Wagner  wrote:

i read this list with interest because its a controversial topic. What
i want to know: lets take the approach and rename all master-branches
to something different. Anyone thought about that this will lead to
more usage of master than it is used now? People will come up in
IRC and will ask where is the master branch. And you have to discuss
this probably with every newcomer that we changed it because master
is not inclusive enough. And then you have to discuss the same topic
with every newcomer exactly like it is discussed here.


Good point. I'd suggest though if we don't make this change then we 
will be using the term forever, however if we do make this change then 
use of it will decline over time, both as people get used to it and as 
word spreads.


Further, tools like Gitlab make it obvious what the mainline branch is 
called (it shows up with a badge labelling it as "default") and is 
automatically chosen when appropriate, e.g. when creating a merge 
request. So for newcomers it will be more a case of them just learning 
what a different name from the get-go.


Cheers,
//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
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, 2019-05-01 at 21:38 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> 
> After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive, 
> Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of
> core 
> devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example,
> in 
> the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core devs.
>
> 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.
> GNOME 
> could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty 
> clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get 
> others moving as well.

To make a counterpoint: The GNOME Foundation straight up hired women to
hold positions of leadership, and I don’t remember seeing a big effort
to become inclusive. Rather, there was “just” someone generous enough
to donate big money that allowed to get people onboard and pay them for
their time.

I still, however, see what we’re doing right now as moral grandstanding
that is rather disconnected from the people in the community.

___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Alberts Muktupāvels via desktop-devel-list

Hi Michael,

Je mer, 2019-05-01 je 21:52 +1000, Michael Gratton skribis:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:48, Richard Hughes  
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I'm not sure how you can argue that someone *not* having done something 
> demonstrates it would have no effect?

I think the problem is that, when prompted why we should make this
change, you said that we need only look at Python to see why this
change is good. But Python did NOT change the name of their master
branch, so it's a disingenuous example.

I agree that Python's change was good, and I agree that we should adapt
to be more inclusive (and we already do a lot!), but I do not see that
the name of the master branch stops us from being more inclusive, EVEN
IF I personally think that the name "master" is a bit sucky.

Do you have testimonies from people who are (potentially) affected by
the name of the master branch? I think that that would be a lot more
interesting than hypothetics. You keep asserting that the term
master—in isolation—is problematic. But you don't actually back that up
with anything other than guilt by association, or the feminist argument
against gendered terminology.

Maybe I'm asking something very difficult (it's not easy to find
affected would-have-been contributors), but I find that this would be
immensely valuable for this conversation. Maybe you can contact
organisations that fight for the rights of former slaves, and the
descendants of slaves?

And while I agree with the argument against gendered terminology,
and think that the word "master" is the suckiest possible word they
could have chosen among many options (trunk, main, mainline, etc), I do
not feel strongly enough about this to make such a huge, breaking
change.

We would be breaking with all available documentation, and would
(ironically, perhaps) make it HARDER to get started on contributing
because we break with defaults. That's why, if this change is very
important, I would much much much rather see this happen upstream. Have
you contacted upstream Git?

> Since there are no technical barriers and since we have a way of 
> seamlessly handling backwards compatibility, why don't we try this and 
> see how well it works?

Do we really? I'm not entirely convinced that this change is seamless.
I say this as a GNOME translator for Esperanto, which is the only
locale that does not have a territory (e.g., "eo.UTF-8" instead of
"eo_ZZ.UTF-8"). It breaks so much that I keep having to patch over such
a tiny, stupid difference. And when I approach upstream about this,
they say that it is fully supported in glibc, and that downstream
should just deal with it.

It's maybe not the perfect analogy, but breaking with defaults can be
really, really painful.

With kindness,
Carmen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Günther Wagner

Hi Michael,

i read this list with interest because its a controversial topic. What
i want to know: lets take the approach and rename all master-branches
to something different. Anyone thought about that this will lead to
more usage of master than it is used now? People will come up in 
IRC and will ask where is the master branch. And you have to discuss
this probably with every newcomer that we changed it because master
is not inclusive enough. And then you have to discuss the same topic
with every newcomer exactly like it is discussed here.

You even have to write it down on newcomer landing pages. "Our master
branch is called mainline because ..."

I think this change will pull the word more in the middle then in the
background.

Just my 2 cents

Günther

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:38 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 13:16, Ernestas Kulik  
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:08 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> > >  In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we
> > > will
> > >  gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by
> > > entertaining
> > >  a small minority who would rather we aren't.
> > 
> > Excuse me if I missed this, but can you elaborate on what has
> > clearly
> > been shown?
> 
> After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive, 
> Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of
> core 
> devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example,
> in 
> the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core devs.
> 
> 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.
> GNOME 
> could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty 
> clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get 
> others moving as well.
> 
> //Mike
> 

___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Andre Klapper

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 15:03 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote:
>
> Numbers please? For example how many contributors GNOME has lost last
> year? Do you speak about one or two people? Hundreds people? More?

General numbers for authors and commits can be found at the beginning
of every Release Notes edition [1] since version 3.2. However note that
those numbers only include commits/merges in the git master branch.

andre

[1] https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/

--
Andre Klapper  |  ak...@gmx.net
https://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/

___
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, May 1, 2019 at 2:09 PM Michael Gratton  wrote:

> Hi Tristan,
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 14:22, Tristan Van Berkom via desktop-devel-list
>  wrote:
> > Instead, by opening the door to censorship of words which are not
> > themselves inherently vulgar or foul (i.e. 'master' is not considered
> > a
> > 'swear word'), we are creating an atmosphere where people worry more
> > and more whether they can express themselves freely.
>
> This has already been covered in the original proposal under objection
> (1) "It doesn't matter". As has already been discussed, what actually
> doesn't matter is what you or I think, it is the people who have been
> affected by the language we use that matter.
> *These are the people who won't contribute to GNOME because of these terms*,
> and it is the project
> that loses out in the end.
>

Numbers please? For example how many contributors GNOME has lost last year?
Do you speak about one or two people? Hundreds people? More?


-- 
Alberts Muktupāvels
___
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, May 1, 2019 at 21:52, Michael Gratton  wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:48, Richard Hughes  
wrote:

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.



In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the Python 
change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of using 
another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's not the 
pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in isolation that 
is.


Further, this proposal is actually covers changing fewer terms than 
Python did, and hence is more conservative in that respect.


Please, actually read it: 

//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Ask Hjorth Larsen via desktop-devel-list

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 13:46, Ask Hjorth Larsen  
wrote:

Also what does Python have to do with this?  What specific gains came
from renaming their branch?  https://github.com/python/cpython .  It
looks to me like they did not rename the branch.  This sort of stuff
has been pointed out to you in several places yet you keep
perpetuating it.


See my reply to Ernestas as to why Python is relevant.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:48, Richard Hughes  
wrote:

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.


I'm not sure how you can argue that someone *not* having done something 
demonstrates it would have no effect?


Since there are no technical barriers and since we have a way of 
seamlessly handling backwards compatibility, why don't we try this and 
see how well it works?


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Richard Hughes via desktop-devel-list

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

Am Mi., 1. Mai 2019 um 13:09 Uhr schrieb Michael Gratton :



>
> In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we will
> gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by entertaining a
> small minority who would rather we aren't.

You imply that some of us desire GNOME not to be inclusive.  I don't
think anybody in this thread thinks like that, and this shows very
well how disconnected your thoughts are from reality.  What you wrote
there is a blanket accusation against those disagreeing with your
change.  I don't think that's acceptable.

Also what does Python have to do with this?  What specific gains came
from renaming their branch?  https://github.com/python/cpython .  It
looks to me like they did not rename the branch.  This sort of stuff
has been pointed out to you in several places yet you keep
perpetuating it.

I/we/whoever are not against making changes to be inclusive or
respectful, but you are now the one being disrespectful.

Best regards
Ask

>
> //Mike
>
> --
> ⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
> ⚙ 
>
>
> ___
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
___
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, May 1, 2019 at 13:16, Ernestas Kulik  
wrote:

On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:08 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:

 In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we will
 gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by entertaining
 a small minority who would rather we aren't.


Excuse me if I missed this, but can you elaborate on what has clearly
been shown?


After deliberately setting out to make the project more inclusive, 
Python has reversed a five-year-long trend of declining number of core 
devs and it has been increasing ever since. They have for example, in 
the last three years gone from having 0 to 4 women who are core devs.


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. GNOME 
could be in a similar position of leadership here, since it's pretty 
clear /someone/ needs to be the first to do the right thing to get 
others moving as well.


//Mike

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 


___
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

2019-05-01 Thread Richard Hughes via desktop-devel-list

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 Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:08 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
> In the end, as the experience Python has had clearly shows, we will 
> gain much, much more by being inclusive than we lose by entertaining
> a 
> small minority who would rather we aren't.

Excuse me if I missed this, but can you elaborate on what has clearly
been shown?

___
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