Hi All,
I'm a black data scientist. For whatever it's worth, I have never taken
offense to the term "Master" branch, as I have never interpreted it to have
a derogatory connotation. It's literally never crossed my mind.
That said, I certainly appreciate the sentiment, and the spirit of the
discussion. It's nice to know people are looking for opportunities to move
us in the right direction. I have no investment in the outcome either way.
Just my $.02.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:27 AM Neal Richardson <
neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Makes sense, I'm happy to monitor the situation and revisit the discussion
> in the coming weeks.
>
> FTR, the whitelist/blacklist language was resolved yesterday in
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7484.
>
> Neal
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:01 AM Micah Kornfield
> wrote:
>
> > GitHub is apparently looking into it as well:
> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
> >
> > Yep, it seems like a few places are, that is why I think we should delay
> > any branch renaming until bigger providers can come to a consensus, I
> don't
> > want to have to make this change twice.
> >
> >
> >> FWIW when you clone (from GitHub at least), you get the default branch,
> >> whether it is named "master" or not.
> >
> > I'm not sure this covers all access paths. Given the concern on the
> > linked thread from git-core, I really think we should wait until there is
> > consensus and the core git developers/providers can come to a consensus.
> >
> >
> >> Yes, and there are some reasonable arguments in there for why "main" is
> a
> >> better choice than other alternatives. I was surprised how little
> >> bikeshedding there was.
> >
> > There was also at least one linked thread about how "main" is problematic
> > in non-english speaking languages. I'd prefer to let others bikeshed the
> > naming for us :)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:55 AM Neal Richardson <
> > neal.p.richard...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the discussion, folks. I'm curious to hear what others think
> >> as well.
> >>
> >> Some responses inline.
> >>
> >> Neal
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:24 PM Micah Kornfield
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> sorry for the multiple posts ... I will also note that there is a lot
> of
> >>> debate on this change on the linked thread as well (and I'm not sure
> the
> >>> actual change will happen soon).
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:19 PM Micah Kornfield >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > FWIW Discussion on git core on naming [1], seems like it might be
> >>> > coalescing around "main".
> >>> >
> >>> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200615205722.GG71506@syl.local/
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, and there are some reasonable arguments in there for why "main" is
> a
> >> better choice than other alternatives. I was surprised how little
> >> bikeshedding there was.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:27 PM Micah Kornfield <
> emkornfi...@gmail.com
> >>> >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> I'm in favor of trying to align on neutral language within the
> >>> codebase.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On branch naming, I think we should wait a little to see if a
> >>> consensus
> >>> >> converges on a new naming convention at least within Git/Github.
> >>
> >>
> >> GitHub is apparently looking into it as well:
> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53050955
> >>
> >>
> >>> On a
> >>> >> technical level, I'm not sure if automated tooling (e.g. crawlers)
> >>> outside
> >>> >> of the project might make assumptions about default branch names or
> >>> what
> >>> >> is available in the github API for this type of metadata retrieval.
> >>>
> >>
> >> "default_branch" is already an attribute of "repository" objects in
> >> GitHub API responses
> >>
> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks,
> >>> >> Micah
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:48 PM Wes McKinney
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:33 PM Antoine Pitrou >
> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Le 18/06/2020 à 21:56, Neal Richardson a écrit :
> >>> >>> > > Hi all,
> >>> >>> > > As you're likely aware, there's growing momentum in the
> developer
> >>> >>> community
> >>> >>> > > to drop terminology that some find offensive.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Yes. Is it reasonable? Does it achieve anything? Is there any
> >>> sense
> >>> >>> > in trying to "drop terminology that some find offensive"?
> >>>
> >> >>>
> >>> >>> We wish to create a community that is open and as inclusive and
> >>> >>> welcoming as possible. So yes, IMHO if there is something that some
> >>> >>> people might find offensive (even if it is not intended that way),
> >>> >>> then there is value in removing that possibility from the equation.
> >>> >>> We're here to build a healthy community that builds software
> together
> >>> >>> and so respecting the perspectives of others (even if we disagree
> >>> with
> >>> >>> them) is a part of having a healthy community.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> > >
