Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Laurent Goujon]

Hi,

+1 for me too.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 11:07 AM Josh Elser  wrote:

> +1 change it.
>
> On 7/28/20 1:43 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> > I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t
> make any difference. To some, such as potential members currently outside
> the community, it makes the project more welcoming.
> >
> > Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a
> potential source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >> On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
> >> This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
> >> The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
> >> branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
> >> suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
> >> as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
> >> roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.
> >>
> >> I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
> >> has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
> >> personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
> >> contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
> >> making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
> >> relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
> >> and I believe others have already made this change.
> >>
> >> I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> >> make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> >> us all :)
> >>
> >> [0]
> http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/
> >> [1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Mior
> >> mm...@apache.org
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Josh Elser]

+1 change it.

On 7/28/20 1:43 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:

I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t make 
any difference. To some, such as potential members currently outside the 
community, it makes the project more welcoming.

Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a potential 
source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.

Julian


On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:

Hi all,

You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.

I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
and I believe others have already made this change.

I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
us all :)

[0] http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/
[1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63

--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Michael Mior]

> even you and most of the other folks here doubt it

I didn't say that I doubt that anyone would be affected. I said that
this is possible, because I can't provide proof of specific
individuals who might be impacted which seems to be what was
requested.

> you're not sure how to proceed

>From a technical perspective, I know how to proceed. I don't see how
the fact that discussion is required is in itself a problem.

> For what reason then?

I've already explained my reasoning and my motivation behind proposing
this change. You are free to disbelieve either of these.

--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org

Le ven. 7 août 2020 à 05:31, Viliam Durina  a écrit :
>
> > However, I don't see evidence to support your claims that this will bring
> no new contributors nor make anyone feel more welcome. I'm not claiming
> that I can point to any specific individual who will be positively impacted
> by this change and I will admit that it's possible that no one will be
>
> Evidence? I didn't see any evidence that it will make anybody feel more
> welcome, and even you and most of the other folks here doubt it.
>
> > However, I think the "disruption" to the project is minimal.
>
> Just look at this thread and to the issue: you're not sure how to proceed.
> You have to discuss it. It's like if you change a phone number: you can say
> it's a minimal change, but all your contacts have to do amendments. You
> have to do a public announcement, etc.
>
> > Given that I was the one who proposed the change, I'll add that your
> > assessment that this is political is false. No one is ordering this
> change.
> > It was brought to the community for discussion.
>
> So you say that it just popped in your mind with no relation to the current
> political trends? And you even admit that maybe nobody will be positively
> impacted, but still are pushing it? For what reason then?
>
> Viliam
>
> --
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
> individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
> The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
> in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail
> transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy
> version. -Hazelcast

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Michael Mior]

> What is the suggested flow for the forked repositories?

GitHub has stated that they will be implementing changes this year to
make this process smoother which is why I suggested waiting on this in
the JIRA. At minimum this has been stated to include retargeting open
pull requests. New pull requests would also go to the new default
branch. So I don't forsee any necessary changes to forked
repositories.

> Does that mean we must stop using Jenkins immediately?

I don't believe so. The term slave has already been replaced by
Jenkins. There is ongoing work in the Jenkins community to replace the
term master with "controller." We can let them follow their own
process.

> "main" does sound like a significantly broader term, and it might require 
> extra clarification when used.

Given that GitHub has already announced their intention to change the
default branch name to main, I suspect that if this is a problem, it
would not be specific to Calcite and will also resolve itself as the
use of "main" becomes more common.

--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org

Le ven. 7 août 2020 à 03:59, Vladimir Sitnikov
 a écrit :
>
> What is the suggested flow for the forked repositories?
> The forks would probably need to make adjustments: either rename the branch
> or re-target the branch (and update CI configuration).
>
> I don't think a volunteer can help with updating forks including private
> ones :(
>
> Even if we rename `master` branch, Calcite would still use the labor of
> Jenkins slaves that are controlled by Jenkins master to verify Calcite
> quality.
> Does that mean we must stop using Jenkins immediately?
>
> AFAIK there's just one week left before https://builds.apache.org/
> decommission (~15
> Aug or so), so we need to migrate to https://ci-builds.apache.org/ or
> reject Jenkins to avoid slavery.
>
> --
>
> Just in case: as a non-native speaker, I treat "master branch" and "main
> branch" virtually indistinguishable.
> However, "master branch" has a strong reference to the name of a Git
> branch, while "main branch" sounds more like "a branch which is used a main
> for some reason".
> In other words, "main" does sound like a significantly broader term, and it
> might require extra clarification when used.
>
> Vladimir

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Viliam Durina]

> However, I don't see evidence to support your claims that this will bring
no new contributors nor make anyone feel more welcome. I'm not claiming
that I can point to any specific individual who will be positively impacted
by this change and I will admit that it's possible that no one will be

Evidence? I didn't see any evidence that it will make anybody feel more
welcome, and even you and most of the other folks here doubt it.

> However, I think the "disruption" to the project is minimal.

Just look at this thread and to the issue: you're not sure how to proceed.
You have to discuss it. It's like if you change a phone number: you can say
it's a minimal change, but all your contacts have to do amendments. You
have to do a public announcement, etc.

> Given that I was the one who proposed the change, I'll add that your
> assessment that this is political is false. No one is ordering this
change.
> It was brought to the community for discussion.

So you say that it just popped in your mind with no relation to the current
political trends? And you even admit that maybe nobody will be positively
impacted, but still are pushing it? For what reason then?

Viliam

-- 
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be 
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, 
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. 
The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions 
in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy 
version. -Hazelcast

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Vladimir Sitnikov]

What is the suggested flow for the forked repositories?
The forks would probably need to make adjustments: either rename the branch
or re-target the branch (and update CI configuration).

I don't think a volunteer can help with updating forks including private
ones :(

Even if we rename `master` branch, Calcite would still use the labor of
Jenkins slaves that are controlled by Jenkins master to verify Calcite
quality.
Does that mean we must stop using Jenkins immediately?

AFAIK there's just one week left before https://builds.apache.org/
decommission (~15
Aug or so), so we need to migrate to https://ci-builds.apache.org/ or
reject Jenkins to avoid slavery.

--

Just in case: as a non-native speaker, I treat "master branch" and "main
branch" virtually indistinguishable.
However, "master branch" has a strong reference to the name of a Git
branch, while "main branch" sounds more like "a branch which is used a main
for some reason".
In other words, "main" does sound like a significantly broader term, and it
might require extra clarification when used.

Vladimir

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Stamatis Zampetakis]

Hello,

First of all, I don't think there is a need for a vote on this subject
since the impact on the community is rather low.
The fact that is discussed in this and other projects as well as inside
companies shows that it is not an artificial need but something that might
affect how some people feel.
Given that we have a volunteer (thanks Michael) who is willing to make this
change as transparent as possible for all of us I would suggest to make
things easier for him by closing this discussion and helping in reviewing
the PR/JIRA.

Best,
Stamatis

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:40 AM JiaTao Tao  wrote:

> Agree with Danny Chan, -1 for this change.
>
>
> Regards!
>
> Aron Tao
>
>
> Michael Mior  于2020年8月5日周三 下午6:41写道：
>
> > My apologies for misinterpreting your previous statement then. However, I
> > don't see evidence to support your claims that this will bring no new
> > contributors nor make anyone feel more welcome. I'm not claiming that I
> can
> > point to any specific individual who will be positively impacted by this
> > change and I will admit that it's possible that no one will be. However,
> I
> > think the "disruption" to the project is minimal.
> >
> > Given that I was the one who proposed the change, I'll add that your
> > assessment that this is political is false. No one is ordering this
> change.
> > It was brought to the community for discussion.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, 16:44 Viliam Durina  wrote:
> >
> > > I was surprised that my opposition was evaluated as "not strong". None
> of
> > > my arguments were countered. I vote -1 too.
> > >
> > > - This change will not bring any new contributors
> > > - No contributor will "feel more welcome" by "merging into main"
> instead
> > of
> > > "merging into master". Nobody even thinks about it. For those who do it
> > > might actually feel empowering and satisfying to have some rights
> towards
> > > the master. Same as nobody is bothered by having a Master's degree.
> Maybe
> > > we should exclude people with Master's degrees from voting (just
> kidding
> > > ;-)
> > > - This change IS a disruption, meaning the cost is not trivial. Project
> > > maintainers have to do work and it's a disruption for everyone who
> > checked
> > > out the code, for every actual contributor. It's a nuisance to many
> > people.
> > > - The aim is mainly political. It signifies that a language police can
> > come
> > > over and order some changes based on extremely weak arguments. In this
> > > regard it's distracting and even dangerous.
> > >
> > > Not doing it would signal to the community that some common sense is
> > still
> > > left.
> > >
> > > Viliam
> > >
> > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 16:31, Michael Mior  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't want to get too into the weeds here since there hasn't been
> > > > any strong opposition and it seems like this is a change everyone
> > > > (some perhaps reluctantly) are ok with moving forward with. But a
> > > > couple comments:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone expressed concern? No, but given that main is explicitly
> > > > neutral, I'd rather not place the burden on people who may find
> > > > terminology offensive to raise the issue.
> > > > Do I think about slavery whenever I merge into master? No, but my
> > > > ancestors were also not owned as slaves.
> > > >
> > > > I've opened CALCITE-4147 to track what needs to be done for this.
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4147
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michael Mior
> > > > mm...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 05:55, Ruben Q L  a
> écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would not oppose the renaming, but I must say that I agree with
> > Danny
> > > > > Chan here. Is this really an issue? Is there any official guideline
> > > from
> > > > > the ASF about this topic? Has anyone in the Calcite community truly
> > > > > expressed any concern about the master branch being called
> "master"?
> > Do
> > > > you
> > > > > really think of slavery whenever you "merge into master", or
> whenever
> > > you
> > > > > use the term "master" in this context?
> > > > >
> > > > > I could understand renaming a "master-slave" architecture into
> > > something
> > > > > different, since that is clearly a slavery-related terminology.
> But,
> > as
> > > > > other people have already said, not every usage of the word
> "master"
> > > has
> > > > > this connotation. Honestly I see no problem in having a "master
> > branch"
> > > > > because, in my opinion, it is clear that when we talk about it we
> > mean
> > > > the
> > > > > "reference branch", "principal branch" or (quoting the
> > Merriam-Webster
> > > > > dictionary) the "original from which copies can be made".
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I am wrong here, but I have the impression that we are fixing
> > an
> > > > > artificial problem that does not actually exist. If tomorrow
> someone
> > on
> > > > > Twitter says that the term "class" is offensive because it has some
> > > > 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[JiaTao Tao]

Agree with Danny Chan, -1 for this change.


Regards!

Aron Tao


Michael Mior  于2020年8月5日周三 下午6:41写道：

> My apologies for misinterpreting your previous statement then. However, I
> don't see evidence to support your claims that this will bring no new
> contributors nor make anyone feel more welcome. I'm not claiming that I can
> point to any specific individual who will be positively impacted by this
> change and I will admit that it's possible that no one will be. However, I
> think the "disruption" to the project is minimal.
>
> Given that I was the one who proposed the change, I'll add that your
> assessment that this is political is false. No one is ordering this change.
> It was brought to the community for discussion.
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, 16:44 Viliam Durina  wrote:
>
> > I was surprised that my opposition was evaluated as "not strong". None of
> > my arguments were countered. I vote -1 too.
> >
> > - This change will not bring any new contributors
> > - No contributor will "feel more welcome" by "merging into main" instead
> of
> > "merging into master". Nobody even thinks about it. For those who do it
> > might actually feel empowering and satisfying to have some rights towards
> > the master. Same as nobody is bothered by having a Master's degree. Maybe
> > we should exclude people with Master's degrees from voting (just kidding
> > ;-)
> > - This change IS a disruption, meaning the cost is not trivial. Project
> > maintainers have to do work and it's a disruption for everyone who
> checked
> > out the code, for every actual contributor. It's a nuisance to many
> people.
> > - The aim is mainly political. It signifies that a language police can
> come
> > over and order some changes based on extremely weak arguments. In this
> > regard it's distracting and even dangerous.
> >
> > Not doing it would signal to the community that some common sense is
> still
> > left.
> >
> > Viliam
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 16:31, Michael Mior  wrote:
> >
> > > I don't want to get too into the weeds here since there hasn't been
> > > any strong opposition and it seems like this is a change everyone
> > > (some perhaps reluctantly) are ok with moving forward with. But a
> > > couple comments:
> > >
> > > Has anyone expressed concern? No, but given that main is explicitly
> > > neutral, I'd rather not place the burden on people who may find
> > > terminology offensive to raise the issue.
> > > Do I think about slavery whenever I merge into master? No, but my
> > > ancestors were also not owned as slaves.
> > >
> > > I've opened CALCITE-4147 to track what needs to be done for this.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4147
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Mior
> > > mm...@apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 05:55, Ruben Q L  a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I would not oppose the renaming, but I must say that I agree with
> Danny
> > > > Chan here. Is this really an issue? Is there any official guideline
> > from
> > > > the ASF about this topic? Has anyone in the Calcite community truly
> > > > expressed any concern about the master branch being called "master"?
> Do
> > > you
> > > > really think of slavery whenever you "merge into master", or whenever
> > you
> > > > use the term "master" in this context?
> > > >
> > > > I could understand renaming a "master-slave" architecture into
> > something
> > > > different, since that is clearly a slavery-related terminology. But,
> as
> > > > other people have already said, not every usage of the word "master"
> > has
> > > > this connotation. Honestly I see no problem in having a "master
> branch"
> > > > because, in my opinion, it is clear that when we talk about it we
> mean
> > > the
> > > > "reference branch", "principal branch" or (quoting the
> Merriam-Webster
> > > > dictionary) the "original from which copies can be made".
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I am wrong here, but I have the impression that we are fixing
> an
> > > > artificial problem that does not actually exist. If tomorrow someone
> on
> > > > Twitter says that the term "class" is offensive because it has some
> > > marxist
> > > > connotations, should we rewrite all our Java code? This is an
> extreme,
> > > > stupid example (I hope, although nowadays you never know), but I
> think
> > > you
> > > > know where I am going with my logic...
> > > >
> > > > We need to fight racism but IMHO this is not how to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Ruben
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 06:54, Francis Chuang <
> > francischu...@apache.org>
> > > a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > I am also +1 for this change.
> > > > >
> > > > > - It's a simple change that doesn't require a lot of effort and
> > > > > disruption to the code base.
> > > > > - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> > > > > "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather
> > from
> > > > > master/slave.
> > > > > - We make our 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Michael Mior]

My apologies for misinterpreting your previous statement then. However, I
don't see evidence to support your claims that this will bring no new
contributors nor make anyone feel more welcome. I'm not claiming that I can
point to any specific individual who will be positively impacted by this
change and I will admit that it's possible that no one will be. However, I
think the "disruption" to the project is minimal.

Given that I was the one who proposed the change, I'll add that your
assessment that this is political is false. No one is ordering this change.
It was brought to the community for discussion.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020, 16:44 Viliam Durina  wrote:

> I was surprised that my opposition was evaluated as "not strong". None of
> my arguments were countered. I vote -1 too.
>
> - This change will not bring any new contributors
> - No contributor will "feel more welcome" by "merging into main" instead of
> "merging into master". Nobody even thinks about it. For those who do it
> might actually feel empowering and satisfying to have some rights towards
> the master. Same as nobody is bothered by having a Master's degree. Maybe
> we should exclude people with Master's degrees from voting (just kidding
> ;-)
> - This change IS a disruption, meaning the cost is not trivial. Project
> maintainers have to do work and it's a disruption for everyone who checked
> out the code, for every actual contributor. It's a nuisance to many people.
> - The aim is mainly political. It signifies that a language police can come
> over and order some changes based on extremely weak arguments. In this
> regard it's distracting and even dangerous.
>
> Not doing it would signal to the community that some common sense is still
> left.
>
> Viliam
>
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 16:31, Michael Mior  wrote:
>
> > I don't want to get too into the weeds here since there hasn't been
> > any strong opposition and it seems like this is a change everyone
> > (some perhaps reluctantly) are ok with moving forward with. But a
> > couple comments:
> >
> > Has anyone expressed concern? No, but given that main is explicitly
> > neutral, I'd rather not place the burden on people who may find
> > terminology offensive to raise the issue.
> > Do I think about slavery whenever I merge into master? No, but my
> > ancestors were also not owned as slaves.
> >
> > I've opened CALCITE-4147 to track what needs to be done for this.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4147
> >
> > --
> > Michael Mior
> > mm...@apache.org
> >
> >
> > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 05:55, Ruben Q L  a écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I would not oppose the renaming, but I must say that I agree with Danny
> > > Chan here. Is this really an issue? Is there any official guideline
> from
> > > the ASF about this topic? Has anyone in the Calcite community truly
> > > expressed any concern about the master branch being called "master"? Do
> > you
> > > really think of slavery whenever you "merge into master", or whenever
> you
> > > use the term "master" in this context?
> > >
> > > I could understand renaming a "master-slave" architecture into
> something
> > > different, since that is clearly a slavery-related terminology. But, as
> > > other people have already said, not every usage of the word "master"
> has
> > > this connotation. Honestly I see no problem in having a "master branch"
> > > because, in my opinion, it is clear that when we talk about it we mean
> > the
> > > "reference branch", "principal branch" or (quoting the Merriam-Webster
> > > dictionary) the "original from which copies can be made".
> > >
> > > Maybe I am wrong here, but I have the impression that we are fixing an
> > > artificial problem that does not actually exist. If tomorrow someone on
> > > Twitter says that the term "class" is offensive because it has some
> > marxist
> > > connotations, should we rewrite all our Java code? This is an extreme,
> > > stupid example (I hope, although nowadays you never know), but I think
> > you
> > > know where I am going with my logic...
> > >
> > > We need to fight racism but IMHO this is not how to do it.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Ruben
> > >
> > >
> > > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 06:54, Francis Chuang <
> francischu...@apache.org>
> > a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > I am also +1 for this change.
> > > >
> > > > - It's a simple change that doesn't require a lot of effort and
> > > > disruption to the code base.
> > > > - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> > > > "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather
> from
> > > > master/slave.
> > > > - We make our community more welcoming, diverse and inclusive by
> > > > switching to a term that is more inclusive.
> > > > - Sometimes a new word can be more self-explanatory. Recently
> > > > "blacklist" and "whitelist" was replaced in the Go source code with
> > > > "allowlist" and "blocklist" [1] as a case in point.
> > > >
> > > > Francis
> > > >
> > > > [1] 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Viliam Durina]

I was surprised that my opposition was evaluated as "not strong". None of
my arguments were countered. I vote -1 too.

- This change will not bring any new contributors
- No contributor will "feel more welcome" by "merging into main" instead of
"merging into master". Nobody even thinks about it. For those who do it
might actually feel empowering and satisfying to have some rights towards
the master. Same as nobody is bothered by having a Master's degree. Maybe
we should exclude people with Master's degrees from voting (just kidding ;-)
- This change IS a disruption, meaning the cost is not trivial. Project
maintainers have to do work and it's a disruption for everyone who checked
out the code, for every actual contributor. It's a nuisance to many people.
- The aim is mainly political. It signifies that a language police can come
over and order some changes based on extremely weak arguments. In this
regard it's distracting and even dangerous.

Not doing it would signal to the community that some common sense is still
left.

Viliam

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 16:31, Michael Mior  wrote:

> I don't want to get too into the weeds here since there hasn't been
> any strong opposition and it seems like this is a change everyone
> (some perhaps reluctantly) are ok with moving forward with. But a
> couple comments:
>
> Has anyone expressed concern? No, but given that main is explicitly
> neutral, I'd rather not place the burden on people who may find
> terminology offensive to raise the issue.
> Do I think about slavery whenever I merge into master? No, but my
> ancestors were also not owned as slaves.
>
> I've opened CALCITE-4147 to track what needs to be done for this.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4147
>
> --
> Michael Mior
> mm...@apache.org
>
>
> Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 05:55, Ruben Q L  a écrit :
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would not oppose the renaming, but I must say that I agree with Danny
> > Chan here. Is this really an issue? Is there any official guideline from
> > the ASF about this topic? Has anyone in the Calcite community truly
> > expressed any concern about the master branch being called "master"? Do
> you
> > really think of slavery whenever you "merge into master", or whenever you
> > use the term "master" in this context?
> >
> > I could understand renaming a "master-slave" architecture into something
> > different, since that is clearly a slavery-related terminology. But, as
> > other people have already said, not every usage of the word "master" has
> > this connotation. Honestly I see no problem in having a "master branch"
> > because, in my opinion, it is clear that when we talk about it we mean
> the
> > "reference branch", "principal branch" or (quoting the Merriam-Webster
> > dictionary) the "original from which copies can be made".
> >
> > Maybe I am wrong here, but I have the impression that we are fixing an
> > artificial problem that does not actually exist. If tomorrow someone on
> > Twitter says that the term "class" is offensive because it has some
> marxist
> > connotations, should we rewrite all our Java code? This is an extreme,
> > stupid example (I hope, although nowadays you never know), but I think
> you
> > know where I am going with my logic...
> >
> > We need to fight racism but IMHO this is not how to do it.
> >
> > Best,
> > Ruben
> >
> >
> > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 06:54, Francis Chuang 
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > I am also +1 for this change.
> > >
> > > - It's a simple change that doesn't require a lot of effort and
> > > disruption to the code base.
> > > - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> > > "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather from
> > > master/slave.
> > > - We make our community more welcoming, diverse and inclusive by
> > > switching to a term that is more inclusive.
> > > - Sometimes a new word can be more self-explanatory. Recently
> > > "blacklist" and "whitelist" was replaced in the Go source code with
> > > "allowlist" and "blocklist" [1] as a case in point.
> > >
> > > Francis
> > >
> > > [1] https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/236857/
> > >
> > > On 29/07/2020 12:30 pm, Matt Burgess wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'm a Calcite user and longtime mailing list lurker :) I'd like to
> > > > share our experience from Apache NiFi, we started such a discussion
> > > > for NiFi based on existing discussions from Apache Yetus and Apache
> > > > Accumulo [1]. Our own discussion continued (please see the linked
> > > > email thread) but I believe our community came to a similar consensus
> > > > as the Calcite community (and others), that whatever notions were
> > > > educed from the terms, it is more welcoming and purposeful to change
> > > > them for the best community experience. The impact to the codebase
> was
> > > > minimal and non-breaking, so we came together to perform the few
> steps
> > > > we needed to rename the default branch and search the code for terms
> 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Ruben Q L]

Small question:
since it seems it will not be possible to reach an unanimous consensus on
this topic, would it be possible to open a vote in order to let the
community express if they are "for" or "against" renaming master, and
decide according to the results?

Le mar. 4 août 2020 à 13:27, Albert  a écrit :

> I am against this change -1. (probably vain anyways)
>  @Michael Mior   yes there are people against it.
>
> nobody expressed any gain from this.
> nobody required this change.
> This change expressed a thinking in `incorrect` direction. (personal
> opinion)
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:31 PM Michael Mior  wrote:
>
> > I don't want to get too into the weeds here since there hasn't been
> > any strong opposition and it seems like this is a change everyone
> > (some perhaps reluctantly) are ok with moving forward with. But a
> > couple comments:
> >
> > Has anyone expressed concern? No, but given that main is explicitly
> > neutral, I'd rather not place the burden on people who may find
> > terminology offensive to raise the issue.
> > Do I think about slavery whenever I merge into master? No, but my
> > ancestors were also not owned as slaves.
> >
> > I've opened CALCITE-4147 to track what needs to be done for this.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4147
> >
> > --
> > Michael Mior
> > mm...@apache.org
> >
> >
> > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 05:55, Ruben Q L  a écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I would not oppose the renaming, but I must say that I agree with Danny
> > > Chan here. Is this really an issue? Is there any official guideline
> from
> > > the ASF about this topic? Has anyone in the Calcite community truly
> > > expressed any concern about the master branch being called "master"? Do
> > you
> > > really think of slavery whenever you "merge into master", or whenever
> you
> > > use the term "master" in this context?
> > >
> > > I could understand renaming a "master-slave" architecture into
> something
> > > different, since that is clearly a slavery-related terminology. But, as
> > > other people have already said, not every usage of the word "master"
> has
> > > this connotation. Honestly I see no problem in having a "master branch"
> > > because, in my opinion, it is clear that when we talk about it we mean
> > the
> > > "reference branch", "principal branch" or (quoting the Merriam-Webster
> > > dictionary) the "original from which copies can be made".
> > >
> > > Maybe I am wrong here, but I have the impression that we are fixing an
> > > artificial problem that does not actually exist. If tomorrow someone on
> > > Twitter says that the term "class" is offensive because it has some
> > marxist
> > > connotations, should we rewrite all our Java code? This is an extreme,
> > > stupid example (I hope, although nowadays you never know), but I think
> > you
> > > know where I am going with my logic...
> > >
> > > We need to fight racism but IMHO this is not how to do it.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Ruben
> > >
> > >
> > > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 06:54, Francis Chuang <
> francischu...@apache.org>
> > a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > I am also +1 for this change.
> > > >
> > > > - It's a simple change that doesn't require a lot of effort and
> > > > disruption to the code base.
> > > > - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> > > > "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather
> from
> > > > master/slave.
> > > > - We make our community more welcoming, diverse and inclusive by
> > > > switching to a term that is more inclusive.
> > > > - Sometimes a new word can be more self-explanatory. Recently
> > > > "blacklist" and "whitelist" was replaced in the Go source code with
> > > > "allowlist" and "blocklist" [1] as a case in point.
> > > >
> > > > Francis
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/236857/
> > > >
> > > > On 29/07/2020 12:30 pm, Matt Burgess wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm a Calcite user and longtime mailing list lurker :) I'd like to
> > > > > share our experience from Apache NiFi, we started such a discussion
> > > > > for NiFi based on existing discussions from Apache Yetus and Apache
> > > > > Accumulo [1]. Our own discussion continued (please see the linked
> > > > > email thread) but I believe our community came to a similar
> consensus
> > > > > as the Calcite community (and others), that whatever notions were
> > > > > educed from the terms, it is more welcoming and purposeful to
> change
> > > > > them for the best community experience. The impact to the codebase
> > was
> > > > > minimal and non-breaking, so we came together to perform the few
> > steps
> > > > > we needed to rename the default branch and search the code for
> terms
> > > > > we could simply find-and-replace, plus we updated the Developer
> > Guide.
> > > > > Since then, we haven't seen much in the way of confusion or
> missteps
> > > > > in our development process. Everyone seems to have taken the
> 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Albert]

I am against this change -1. (probably vain anyways)
 @Michael Mior   yes there are people against it.

nobody expressed any gain from this.
nobody required this change.
This change expressed a thinking in `incorrect` direction. (personal
opinion)

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:31 PM Michael Mior  wrote:

> I don't want to get too into the weeds here since there hasn't been
> any strong opposition and it seems like this is a change everyone
> (some perhaps reluctantly) are ok with moving forward with. But a
> couple comments:
>
> Has anyone expressed concern? No, but given that main is explicitly
> neutral, I'd rather not place the burden on people who may find
> terminology offensive to raise the issue.
> Do I think about slavery whenever I merge into master? No, but my
> ancestors were also not owned as slaves.
>
> I've opened CALCITE-4147 to track what needs to be done for this.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4147
>
> --
> Michael Mior
> mm...@apache.org
>
>
> Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 05:55, Ruben Q L  a écrit :
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would not oppose the renaming, but I must say that I agree with Danny
> > Chan here. Is this really an issue? Is there any official guideline from
> > the ASF about this topic? Has anyone in the Calcite community truly
> > expressed any concern about the master branch being called "master"? Do
> you
> > really think of slavery whenever you "merge into master", or whenever you
> > use the term "master" in this context?
> >
> > I could understand renaming a "master-slave" architecture into something
> > different, since that is clearly a slavery-related terminology. But, as
> > other people have already said, not every usage of the word "master" has
> > this connotation. Honestly I see no problem in having a "master branch"
> > because, in my opinion, it is clear that when we talk about it we mean
> the
> > "reference branch", "principal branch" or (quoting the Merriam-Webster
> > dictionary) the "original from which copies can be made".
> >
> > Maybe I am wrong here, but I have the impression that we are fixing an
> > artificial problem that does not actually exist. If tomorrow someone on
> > Twitter says that the term "class" is offensive because it has some
> marxist
> > connotations, should we rewrite all our Java code? This is an extreme,
> > stupid example (I hope, although nowadays you never know), but I think
> you
> > know where I am going with my logic...
> >
> > We need to fight racism but IMHO this is not how to do it.
> >
> > Best,
> > Ruben
> >
> >
> > Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 06:54, Francis Chuang 
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > I am also +1 for this change.
> > >
> > > - It's a simple change that doesn't require a lot of effort and
> > > disruption to the code base.
> > > - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> > > "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather from
> > > master/slave.
> > > - We make our community more welcoming, diverse and inclusive by
> > > switching to a term that is more inclusive.
> > > - Sometimes a new word can be more self-explanatory. Recently
> > > "blacklist" and "whitelist" was replaced in the Go source code with
> > > "allowlist" and "blocklist" [1] as a case in point.
> > >
> > > Francis
> > >
> > > [1] https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/236857/
> > >
> > > On 29/07/2020 12:30 pm, Matt Burgess wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'm a Calcite user and longtime mailing list lurker :) I'd like to
> > > > share our experience from Apache NiFi, we started such a discussion
> > > > for NiFi based on existing discussions from Apache Yetus and Apache
> > > > Accumulo [1]. Our own discussion continued (please see the linked
> > > > email thread) but I believe our community came to a similar consensus
> > > > as the Calcite community (and others), that whatever notions were
> > > > educed from the terms, it is more welcoming and purposeful to change
> > > > them for the best community experience. The impact to the codebase
> was
> > > > minimal and non-breaking, so we came together to perform the few
> steps
> > > > we needed to rename the default branch and search the code for terms
> > > > we could simply find-and-replace, plus we updated the Developer
> Guide.
> > > > Since then, we haven't seen much in the way of confusion or missteps
> > > > in our development process. Everyone seems to have taken the changes
> > > > in stride, updated what they needed to, and continued with their
> > > > contributions, all the while providing a better atmosphere for even
> > > > better things to come.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Matt
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/202006.mbox/%3cCA+LyY55Mb8xZ35W_9UM=ter+gt_1azhgxmbpdn9edbssnv-...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:55 PM Danny Chan 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> As a Chinsese, I didn’t understand quite well why the word “master”
> can
> > > be “slavery”. 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Michael Mior]

I don't want to get too into the weeds here since there hasn't been
any strong opposition and it seems like this is a change everyone
(some perhaps reluctantly) are ok with moving forward with. But a
couple comments:

Has anyone expressed concern? No, but given that main is explicitly
neutral, I'd rather not place the burden on people who may find
terminology offensive to raise the issue.
Do I think about slavery whenever I merge into master? No, but my
ancestors were also not owned as slaves.

I've opened CALCITE-4147 to track what needs to be done for this.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4147

--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org


Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 05:55, Ruben Q L  a écrit :
>
> Hi all,
>
> I would not oppose the renaming, but I must say that I agree with Danny
> Chan here. Is this really an issue? Is there any official guideline from
> the ASF about this topic? Has anyone in the Calcite community truly
> expressed any concern about the master branch being called "master"? Do you
> really think of slavery whenever you "merge into master", or whenever you
> use the term "master" in this context?
>
> I could understand renaming a "master-slave" architecture into something
> different, since that is clearly a slavery-related terminology. But, as
> other people have already said, not every usage of the word "master" has
> this connotation. Honestly I see no problem in having a "master branch"
> because, in my opinion, it is clear that when we talk about it we mean the
> "reference branch", "principal branch" or (quoting the Merriam-Webster
> dictionary) the "original from which copies can be made".
>
> Maybe I am wrong here, but I have the impression that we are fixing an
> artificial problem that does not actually exist. If tomorrow someone on
> Twitter says that the term "class" is offensive because it has some marxist
> connotations, should we rewrite all our Java code? This is an extreme,
> stupid example (I hope, although nowadays you never know), but I think you
> know where I am going with my logic...
>
> We need to fight racism but IMHO this is not how to do it.
>
> Best,
> Ruben
>
>
> Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 06:54, Francis Chuang  a
> écrit :
>
> > I am also +1 for this change.
> >
> > - It's a simple change that doesn't require a lot of effort and
> > disruption to the code base.
> > - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> > "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather from
> > master/slave.
> > - We make our community more welcoming, diverse and inclusive by
> > switching to a term that is more inclusive.
> > - Sometimes a new word can be more self-explanatory. Recently
> > "blacklist" and "whitelist" was replaced in the Go source code with
> > "allowlist" and "blocklist" [1] as a case in point.
> >
> > Francis
> >
> > [1] https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/236857/
> >
> > On 29/07/2020 12:30 pm, Matt Burgess wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm a Calcite user and longtime mailing list lurker :) I'd like to
> > > share our experience from Apache NiFi, we started such a discussion
> > > for NiFi based on existing discussions from Apache Yetus and Apache
> > > Accumulo [1]. Our own discussion continued (please see the linked
> > > email thread) but I believe our community came to a similar consensus
> > > as the Calcite community (and others), that whatever notions were
> > > educed from the terms, it is more welcoming and purposeful to change
> > > them for the best community experience. The impact to the codebase was
> > > minimal and non-breaking, so we came together to perform the few steps
> > > we needed to rename the default branch and search the code for terms
> > > we could simply find-and-replace, plus we updated the Developer Guide.
> > > Since then, we haven't seen much in the way of confusion or missteps
> > > in our development process. Everyone seems to have taken the changes
> > > in stride, updated what they needed to, and continued with their
> > > contributions, all the while providing a better atmosphere for even
> > > better things to come.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > [1]
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/202006.mbox/%3cCA+LyY55Mb8xZ35W_9UM=ter+gt_1azhgxmbpdn9edbssnv-...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:55 PM Danny Chan  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> As a Chinsese, I didn’t understand quite well why the word “master” can
> > be “slavery”. I often see it as the similiar meaning as “main”, it seems to
> > take some time to adapt to new term “main” because I believe most of the
> > developers got used to the word “master”.
> > >>
> > >>> I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> > >>> make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> > >>> us all :)
> > >>
> > >> Is this true ? People would always contribute to Calcite if they need
> > to, apparently not just because of a branch name.
> > >>
> > >> Best,

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Viliam Durina]

> - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather from
> master/slave.
>

No it doesn't. The fact that someone used the term "slave" as an example
doesn't mean the master/slave concept applies to relationships between
branches in git. You can delete the master branch and it does not make the
slave branch free. Nor is the slave branch at the mercy of the master
branch in any way. Master as in "master record" applies a lot better.

But that's not the point. Even if the master/slave concept applied to git,
does that matter? As a concept in software it's perfectly applicable. The
relationships between software objects tend to be harsh: we kill with
impunity, often randomly or totally, we do genocides (removing all objects
with some property), we have controllers with absolute powers, there's no
due process or jail. Software objects don't have dignity or freedom of
speech.

Requests such as this one are just virtue signalling and pretended
morality, and as such are a pure disruption and make the community LESS
welcoming by insisting on artificial issues. They turn things political. I
expect somebody will accuse me of supporting slavery, but that would be
ridiculous.

I already spent too much time here, I'll not respond further. It's vain
anyway. We can name the master branch "42", I'll get through it.

P.S.: I agree with one point: this change brings more diversity: now you
have to figure which branch is that of which copies are normally made. But
this diversity is bad.

-- 
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be 
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, 
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. 
The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions 
in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy 
version. -Hazelcast

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Ruben Q L]

Hi all,

I would not oppose the renaming, but I must say that I agree with Danny
Chan here. Is this really an issue? Is there any official guideline from
the ASF about this topic? Has anyone in the Calcite community truly
expressed any concern about the master branch being called "master"? Do you
really think of slavery whenever you "merge into master", or whenever you
use the term "master" in this context?

I could understand renaming a "master-slave" architecture into something
different, since that is clearly a slavery-related terminology. But, as
other people have already said, not every usage of the word "master" has
this connotation. Honestly I see no problem in having a "master branch"
because, in my opinion, it is clear that when we talk about it we mean the
"reference branch", "principal branch" or (quoting the Merriam-Webster
dictionary) the "original from which copies can be made".

Maybe I am wrong here, but I have the impression that we are fixing an
artificial problem that does not actually exist. If tomorrow someone on
Twitter says that the term "class" is offensive because it has some marxist
connotations, should we rewrite all our Java code? This is an extreme,
stupid example (I hope, although nowadays you never know), but I think you
know where I am going with my logic...

We need to fight racism but IMHO this is not how to do it.

Best,
Ruben


Le mer. 29 juil. 2020 à 06:54, Francis Chuang  a
écrit :

> I am also +1 for this change.
>
> - It's a simple change that doesn't require a lot of effort and
> disruption to the code base.
> - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather from
> master/slave.
> - We make our community more welcoming, diverse and inclusive by
> switching to a term that is more inclusive.
> - Sometimes a new word can be more self-explanatory. Recently
> "blacklist" and "whitelist" was replaced in the Go source code with
> "allowlist" and "blocklist" [1] as a case in point.
>
> Francis
>
> [1] https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/236857/
>
> On 29/07/2020 12:30 pm, Matt Burgess wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm a Calcite user and longtime mailing list lurker :) I'd like to
> > share our experience from Apache NiFi, we started such a discussion
> > for NiFi based on existing discussions from Apache Yetus and Apache
> > Accumulo [1]. Our own discussion continued (please see the linked
> > email thread) but I believe our community came to a similar consensus
> > as the Calcite community (and others), that whatever notions were
> > educed from the terms, it is more welcoming and purposeful to change
> > them for the best community experience. The impact to the codebase was
> > minimal and non-breaking, so we came together to perform the few steps
> > we needed to rename the default branch and search the code for terms
> > we could simply find-and-replace, plus we updated the Developer Guide.
> > Since then, we haven't seen much in the way of confusion or missteps
> > in our development process. Everyone seems to have taken the changes
> > in stride, updated what they needed to, and continued with their
> > contributions, all the while providing a better atmosphere for even
> > better things to come.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matt
> >
> > [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/202006.mbox/%3cCA+LyY55Mb8xZ35W_9UM=ter+gt_1azhgxmbpdn9edbssnv-...@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:55 PM Danny Chan  wrote:
> >>
> >> As a Chinsese, I didn’t understand quite well why the word “master” can
> be “slavery”. I often see it as the similiar meaning as “main”, it seems to
> take some time to adapt to new term “main” because I believe most of the
> developers got used to the word “master”.
> >>
> >>> I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> >>> make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> >>> us all :)
> >>
> >> Is this true ? People would always contribute to Calcite if they need
> to, apparently not just because of a branch name.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Danny Chan
> >> 在 2020年7月29日 +0800 AM7:08，Michael Mior ，写道：
> >>> Actually, the argument that the term "master" in git didn't originate
> >>> from master/slave is not true. See the article I linked earlier. In
> >>> any case, I don't think the change hurts anyone other than a brief
> >>> annoyance when we all have to change our branch name and if it makes
> >>> the project more welcoming to someone, than great.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Michael Mior
> >>> mm...@apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le mar. 28 juil. 2020 à 17:29, Julian Hyde  a
> écrit :
> 
>  I agree with you. It’s probably derived from “master” as in the “gold
> master” [1] which is the mix from which a sound engineer would cut a record
> or CD. And who knows where that term came from?
> 
>  But in the end, the origin of the term is irrelevant. The current
> name is, or may be, unwelcoming to 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Francis Chuang]

I am also +1 for this change.

- It's a simple change that doesn't require a lot of effort and 
disruption to the code base.
- If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term 
"master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather from 
master/slave.
- We make our community more welcoming, diverse and inclusive by 
switching to a term that is more inclusive.
- Sometimes a new word can be more self-explanatory. Recently 
"blacklist" and "whitelist" was replaced in the Go source code with 
"allowlist" and "blocklist" [1] as a case in point.


Francis

[1] https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/236857/

On 29/07/2020 12:30 pm, Matt Burgess wrote:

Hi all,

I'm a Calcite user and longtime mailing list lurker :) I'd like to
share our experience from Apache NiFi, we started such a discussion
for NiFi based on existing discussions from Apache Yetus and Apache
Accumulo [1]. Our own discussion continued (please see the linked
email thread) but I believe our community came to a similar consensus
as the Calcite community (and others), that whatever notions were
educed from the terms, it is more welcoming and purposeful to change
them for the best community experience. The impact to the codebase was
minimal and non-breaking, so we came together to perform the few steps
we needed to rename the default branch and search the code for terms
we could simply find-and-replace, plus we updated the Developer Guide.
Since then, we haven't seen much in the way of confusion or missteps
in our development process. Everyone seems to have taken the changes
in stride, updated what they needed to, and continued with their
contributions, all the while providing a better atmosphere for even
better things to come.

Regards,
Matt

[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/202006.mbox/%3cCA+LyY55Mb8xZ35W_9UM=ter+gt_1azhgxmbpdn9edbssnv-...@mail.gmail.com%3e

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:55 PM Danny Chan  wrote:


As a Chinsese, I didn’t understand quite well why the word “master” can be 
“slavery”. I often see it as the similiar meaning as “main”, it seems to take 
some time to adapt to new term “main” because I believe most of the developers 
got used to the word “master”.


I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
us all :)


Is this true ? People would always contribute to Calcite if they need to, 
apparently not just because of a branch name.

Best,
Danny Chan
在 2020年7月29日 +0800 AM7:08，Michael Mior ，写道：

Actually, the argument that the term "master" in git didn't originate
from master/slave is not true. See the article I linked earlier. In
any case, I don't think the change hurts anyone other than a brief
annoyance when we all have to change our branch name and if it makes
the project more welcoming to someone, than great.

--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org


Le mar. 28 juil. 2020 à 17:29, Julian Hyde  a écrit :


I agree with you. It’s probably derived from “master” as in the “gold master” 
[1] which is the mix from which a sound engineer would cut a record or CD. And 
who knows where that term came from?

But in the end, the origin of the term is irrelevant. The current name is, or 
may be, unwelcoming to some people, so let’s just move on.

Julian

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio) 



On Jul 28, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Viliam Durina  wrote:

It's not a term related to slavery, it has much broader meaning than "slave
owner", but any argument is probably vain.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Julian Hyde  wrote:


I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t
make any difference. To some, such as potential members currently outside
the community, it makes the project more welcoming.

Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a potential
source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.

Julian


On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:

Hi all,

You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.

I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
and I believe others have already made this change.

I think this is a relatively low impact 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Matt Burgess]

Hi all,

I'm a Calcite user and longtime mailing list lurker :) I'd like to
share our experience from Apache NiFi, we started such a discussion
for NiFi based on existing discussions from Apache Yetus and Apache
Accumulo [1]. Our own discussion continued (please see the linked
email thread) but I believe our community came to a similar consensus
as the Calcite community (and others), that whatever notions were
educed from the terms, it is more welcoming and purposeful to change
them for the best community experience. The impact to the codebase was
minimal and non-breaking, so we came together to perform the few steps
we needed to rename the default branch and search the code for terms
we could simply find-and-replace, plus we updated the Developer Guide.
Since then, we haven't seen much in the way of confusion or missteps
in our development process. Everyone seems to have taken the changes
in stride, updated what they needed to, and continued with their
contributions, all the while providing a better atmosphere for even
better things to come.

Regards,
Matt

[1] 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/202006.mbox/%3cCA+LyY55Mb8xZ35W_9UM=ter+gt_1azhgxmbpdn9edbssnv-...@mail.gmail.com%3e

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:55 PM Danny Chan  wrote:
>
> As a Chinsese, I didn’t understand quite well why the word “master” can be 
> “slavery”. I often see it as the similiar meaning as “main”, it seems to take 
> some time to adapt to new term “main” because I believe most of the 
> developers got used to the word “master”.
>
> > I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> > make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> > us all :)
>
> Is this true ? People would always contribute to Calcite if they need to, 
> apparently not just because of a branch name.
>
> Best,
> Danny Chan
> 在 2020年7月29日 +0800 AM7:08，Michael Mior ，写道：
> > Actually, the argument that the term "master" in git didn't originate
> > from master/slave is not true. See the article I linked earlier. In
> > any case, I don't think the change hurts anyone other than a brief
> > annoyance when we all have to change our branch name and if it makes
> > the project more welcoming to someone, than great.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Mior
> > mm...@apache.org
> >
> >
> > Le mar. 28 juil. 2020 à 17:29, Julian Hyde  a écrit 
> > :
> > >
> > > I agree with you. It’s probably derived from “master” as in the “gold 
> > > master” [1] which is the mix from which a sound engineer would cut a 
> > > record or CD. And who knows where that term came from?
> > >
> > > But in the end, the origin of the term is irrelevant. The current name 
> > > is, or may be, unwelcoming to some people, so let’s just move on.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio) 
> > > 
> > >
> > > > On Jul 28, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Viliam Durina  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's not a term related to slavery, it has much broader meaning than 
> > > > "slave
> > > > owner", but any argument is probably vain.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Julian Hyde  
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it 
> > > > > doesn’t
> > > > > make any difference. To some, such as potential members currently 
> > > > > outside
> > > > > the community, it makes the project more welcoming.
> > > > >
> > > > > Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a 
> > > > > potential
> > > > > source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Julian
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can find some background on this discussion at the link below 
> > > > > > [0].
> > > > > > This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the 
> > > > > > ASF.
> > > > > > The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
> > > > > > branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
> > > > > > suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer 
> > > > > > community
> > > > > > as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
> > > > > > roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
> > > > > > has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. 
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
> > > > > > contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
> > > > > > making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
> > > > > > relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
> > > > > > and I believe others have already made this change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> > > > > > make 

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Danny Chan]

As a Chinsese, I didn’t understand quite well why the word “master” can be 
“slavery”. I often see it as the similiar meaning as “main”, it seems to take 
some time to adapt to new term “main” because I believe most of the developers 
got used to the word “master”.

> I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> us all :)

Is this true ? People would always contribute to Calcite if they need to, 
apparently not just because of a branch name.

Best,
Danny Chan
在 2020年7月29日 +0800 AM7:08，Michael Mior ，写道：
> Actually, the argument that the term "master" in git didn't originate
> from master/slave is not true. See the article I linked earlier. In
> any case, I don't think the change hurts anyone other than a brief
> annoyance when we all have to change our branch name and if it makes
> the project more welcoming to someone, than great.
>
> --
> Michael Mior
> mm...@apache.org
>
>
> Le mar. 28 juil. 2020 à 17:29, Julian Hyde  a écrit :
> >
> > I agree with you. It’s probably derived from “master” as in the “gold 
> > master” [1] which is the mix from which a sound engineer would cut a record 
> > or CD. And who knows where that term came from?
> >
> > But in the end, the origin of the term is irrelevant. The current name is, 
> > or may be, unwelcoming to some people, so let’s just move on.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio) 
> > 
> >
> > > On Jul 28, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Viliam Durina  wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not a term related to slavery, it has much broader meaning than 
> > > "slave
> > > owner", but any argument is probably vain.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Julian Hyde  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t
> > > > make any difference. To some, such as potential members currently 
> > > > outside
> > > > the community, it makes the project more welcoming.
> > > >
> > > > Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a 
> > > > potential
> > > > source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.
> > > >
> > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > > > On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
> > > > > This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
> > > > > The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
> > > > > branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
> > > > > suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
> > > > > as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
> > > > > roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
> > > > > has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
> > > > > personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
> > > > > contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
> > > > > making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
> > > > > relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
> > > > > and I believe others have already made this change.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> > > > > make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> > > > > us all :)
> > > > >
> > > > > [0]
> > > > http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Michael Mior
> > > > > mm...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Viliam Durina
> > > Jet Developer
> > > hazelcast®
> > >
> > >  2 W 5th Ave, Ste 300 | San Mateo, CA 94402 |
> > > USA
> > > +1 (650) 521-5453 | hazelcast.com 
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message contains confidential information and is intended only for 
> > > the
> > > individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> > > disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
> > > immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> > > delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
> > > guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> > > corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
> > > The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
> > > in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail
> > > transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy
> > > version. -Hazelcast
> >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Michael Mior]

Actually, the argument that the term "master" in git didn't originate
from master/slave is not true. See the article I linked earlier. In
any case, I don't think the change hurts anyone other than a brief
annoyance when we all have to change our branch name and if it makes
the project more welcoming to someone, than great.

--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org


Le mar. 28 juil. 2020 à 17:29, Julian Hyde  a écrit :
>
> I agree with you. It’s probably derived from “master” as in the “gold master” 
> [1] which is the mix from which a sound engineer would cut a record or CD. 
> And who knows where that term came from?
>
> But in the end, the origin of the term is irrelevant. The current name is, or 
> may be, unwelcoming to some people, so let’s just move on.
>
> Julian
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio) 
> 
>
> > On Jul 28, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Viliam Durina  wrote:
> >
> > It's not a term related to slavery, it has much broader meaning than "slave
> > owner", but any argument is probably vain.
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Julian Hyde  wrote:
> >
> >> I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t
> >> make any difference. To some, such as potential members currently outside
> >> the community, it makes the project more welcoming.
> >>
> >> Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a potential
> >> source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >>> On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
> >>> This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
> >>> The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
> >>> branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
> >>> suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
> >>> as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
> >>> roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.
> >>>
> >>> I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
> >>> has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
> >>> personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
> >>> contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
> >>> making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
> >>> relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
> >>> and I believe others have already made this change.
> >>>
> >>> I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> >>> make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> >>> us all :)
> >>>
> >>> [0]
> >> http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/
> >>> [1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Michael Mior
> >>> mm...@apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Viliam Durina
> > Jet Developer
> >  hazelcast®
> >
> >   2 W 5th Ave, Ste 300 | San Mateo, CA 94402 |
> > USA
> > +1 (650) 521-5453 | hazelcast.com 
> >
> > --
> > This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
> > individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> > disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
> > immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> > delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
> > guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> > corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
> > The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
> > in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail
> > transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy
> > version. -Hazelcast
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Viliam Durina]

> It’s probably derived from “master” as in the “gold master” [1] which is
> the mix from which a sound engineer would cut a record or CD. And who knows
> where that term came from?
>
Of course! Dictionaries are clear, see
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master or
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/master. But if you don't rename, it will
attract "contributors" among the SJWs who will "contribute" their false
arguments. That's why I say any argument is vain. I also don't think the
term mr deters any real contributors, so that's another false argument.

Maybe one day dictionaries will list only one meaning for the m-word: "a
tyrannical slave owner"

-- 
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be 
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, 
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. 
The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions 
in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy 
version. -Hazelcast

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Julian Hyde]

I agree with you. It’s probably derived from “master” as in the “gold master” 
[1] which is the mix from which a sound engineer would cut a record or CD. And 
who knows where that term came from?

But in the end, the origin of the term is irrelevant. The current name is, or 
may be, unwelcoming to some people, so let’s just move on.

Julian

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio) 


> On Jul 28, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Viliam Durina  wrote:
> 
> It's not a term related to slavery, it has much broader meaning than "slave
> owner", but any argument is probably vain.
> 
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Julian Hyde  wrote:
> 
>> I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t
>> make any difference. To some, such as potential members currently outside
>> the community, it makes the project more welcoming.
>> 
>> Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a potential
>> source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.
>> 
>> Julian
>> 
>>> On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
>>> This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
>>> The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
>>> branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
>>> suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
>>> as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
>>> roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.
>>> 
>>> I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
>>> has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
>>> personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
>>> contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
>>> making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
>>> relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
>>> and I believe others have already made this change.
>>> 
>>> I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
>>> make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
>>> us all :)
>>> 
>>> [0]
>> http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/
>>> [1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Michael Mior
>>> mm...@apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Viliam Durina
> Jet Developer
>  hazelcast®
> 
>   2 W 5th Ave, Ste 300 | San Mateo, CA 94402 |
> USA
> +1 (650) 521-5453 | hazelcast.com 
> 
> -- 
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
> individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
> delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be 
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, 
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. 
> The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions 
> in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
> transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy 
> version. -Hazelcast

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Viliam Durina]

It's not a term related to slavery, it has much broader meaning than "slave
owner", but any argument is probably vain.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Julian Hyde  wrote:

> I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t
> make any difference. To some, such as potential members currently outside
> the community, it makes the project more welcoming.
>
> Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a potential
> source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.
>
> Julian
>
> > On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
> > This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
> > The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
> > branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
> > suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
> > as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
> > roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.
> >
> > I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
> > has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
> > personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
> > contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
> > making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
> > relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
> > and I believe others have already made this change.
> >
> > I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> > make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> > us all :)
> >
> > [0]
> http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/
> > [1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63
> >
> > --
> > Michael Mior
> > mm...@apache.org
>
>

-- 
Viliam Durina
Jet Developer
  hazelcast®

   2 W 5th Ave, Ste 300 | San Mateo, CA 94402 |
USA
+1 (650) 521-5453 | hazelcast.com 

-- 
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be 
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, 
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. 
The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions 
in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy 
version. -Hazelcast

Re: [DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Julian Hyde]

I am in favor of renaming ‘master’ to ‘main’. To most people it doesn’t make 
any difference. To some, such as potential members currently outside the 
community, it makes the project more welcoming. 

Very little effort or disruption is required. We’ve identified a potential 
source of friction, so let’s fix it and move on.

Julian

> On Jul 28, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Michael Mior  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
> This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
> The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
> branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
> suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
> as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
> roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.
> 
> I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
> has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
> personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
> contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
> making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
> relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
> and I believe others have already made this change.
> 
> I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
> make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
> us all :)
> 
> [0] 
> http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/
> [1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63
> 
> --
> Michael Mior
> mm...@apache.org

[DISCUSSION] Rename master branch to main

[Michael Mior]

Hi all,

You can find some background on this discussion at the link below [0].
This is a topic that has come up regularly among D folks at the ASF.
The short summary is that the term "master" when referring to a git
branch is a reference to terminology related to slavery. I'm
suggesting main because this seems to be what the developer community
as a whole is gravitating towards. See for example, GitHub's public
roadmap [1] where there are plans to make this change.

I'm hoping that this discussion can be focused not on whether anyone
has been impacted by such terminology, but how we can move forward. I
personally believe that if a single person feels more welcome to
contribute because of the change, it's a win. I also don't think
making this change needs to be painful. (There are less than 20
relevant references to "master" in the Calcite code.) Apache Mahout
and I believe others have already made this change.

I think this is a relatively low impact change that can potentially
make us even more welcoming to new contributors, which is a benefit to
us all :)

[0] http://www.kapwing.com/blog/how-to-rename-your-master-branch-to-main-in-git/
[1] https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/63

--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org