{"thread":{"id":"53390","subject":"Rename offensive terminology (master)","startedAt":"2020-05-04T17:20:47Z","lastAt":"2020-06-26T10:32:44Z","messageCount":140,"participants":["Simon Pieters","Robert P. J. Day","Konstantin Ryabitsev","Randall S. Becker","N6Ghost","brian m. carlson","Junio C Hamano","demerphq","Johannes Sixt","Don Goodman-Wilson","Kevin Swinton","Johannes Schindelin","Edward Thomson","Michal Suchánek","Derrick Stolee","Philip Oakley","Sérgio Augusto Vianna","Elijah Newren","Sergey Lapin","Thomas Adam","Michael Felt (aixtools)","George Of The Jungle","Eric Wong","James Ramsay","Taylor Blau","Andrew Ardill","J. Paul Reed","Jonathan Nieder","Alexandru Pătrănescu","Fang-Pen Lin","Oleg","Alex Smith","Konstantin Tokarev","Whinis","John Turner","ZeeVriend","Sergey Organov","Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton","Gunnar Liljas","lego_12239@rambler.ru"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"396938","messageId":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Simon Pieters","fromEmail":"simon@bocoup.com","sentAt":"2020-05-04T17:20:33Z","receivedAt":"2020-05-04T17:20:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"simon@bocoup.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/076d83e195f5a753889d456e5daedcc1a94e3a1464a71f398cbe33827b915097?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"\"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\nslavery-origin terminology. See\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n\nThe Python programming language, and various other projects, have\ntaken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n\"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n\nWhen different projects using git decide to move away from \"master\" as\nthe name of their main branch, inconsistency ensues between projects.\nSee https://github.com/desktop/desktop/issues/6478 (and \"Related\nIssues and Projects\").\n\nTo avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\nthink git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\ninitiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\nsince it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n\n-- \nSimon Pieters\nBocoup https://bocoup.com/\n"},{"id":"396941","messageId":"alpine.LFD.2.21.2005041340480.220155@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Robert P. J. Day","fromEmail":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","sentAt":"2020-05-04T17:43:15Z","receivedAt":"2020-05-04T17:43:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/226084077?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, 4 May 2020, Simon Pieters wrote:\n\n> \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> slavery-origin terminology. See\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n>\n> The Python programming language, and various other projects, have\n> taken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n> \"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n>\n> When different projects using git decide to move away from \"master\"\n> as the name of their main branch, inconsistency ensues between\n> projects. See https://github.com/desktop/desktop/issues/6478 (and\n> \"Related Issues and Projects\").\n>\n> To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n> think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n> initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n> since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n\n please, no ... this is just massive and unnecessary churn, and it\nopens up a ridiculous can of worms. if you change this, then of course\nyou will have to reword everything related to data buses that are\ndefined to work on a \"master-slave\" basis. and would you have to stop\ndescribing your competence in a particular field as having attained a\n\"mastery\" of the subject matter?\n\n this is just a bad idea.\n\nrday\n"},{"id":"396942","messageId":"20200504174548.r3zaftqcq52yhd2u@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-05-04T17:45:48Z","receivedAt":"2020-05-04T17:45:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 07:20:33PM +0200, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> slavery-origin terminology. See\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n\nGit doesn't use \"master-slave\" terminology -- the \"master\" comes from \nthe concept of having a \"master\" from which copies (branches) are made:\n\nhttps://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_recording\n\nThe concept predates the music business and goes back to middle ages \nwhen a guild master would create a \"master work\" or \"master piece\" that \nthe apprentices could use for study or for imitation.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_craftsman\n\nSo, while I wholeheartedly support using inclusive language, I think git \nis in the clear here.\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"396945","messageId":"alpine.LFD.2.21.2005041351170.220597@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Robert P. J. Day","fromEmail":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","sentAt":"2020-05-04T17:53:37Z","receivedAt":"2020-05-04T17:53:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/226084077?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, 4 May 2020, Simon Pieters wrote:\n\n> \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> slavery-origin terminology. See\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n>\n> The Python programming language, and various other projects, have\n> taken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n> \"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n\n uh ... i just popped over to that python.org discussion, and it does\nnot even *remotely* resemble what you describe. the gist of that\ndiscussion is that most people seem opposed to a sweeping change, and\nare annoyed about all the bandwidth that was wasted by one person\nharping about this.\n\n based on what i read at that link, python has in no way \"taken a\nstance,\" so i'm calling you on your rather egregious misrepresentation\nof what happened there.\n\nrday\n"},{"id":"396949","messageId":"056c01d62240$66084e40$3218eac0$@nexbridge.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"alpine.LFD.2.21.2005041351170.220597@localhost.localdomain","subject":"RE: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Randall S. Becker","fromEmail":"rsbecker@nexbridge.com","sentAt":"2020-05-04T18:18:17Z","receivedAt":"2020-05-04T18:19:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"randall.becker@nexbridge.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/28956764?v=4"},"body":"On May 4, 2020 1:54 PM, Robert P. J. Day Wrote:\n> On Mon, 4 May 2020, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> \n> > \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> > slavery-origin terminology. See\n> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_co\n> > ncerns\n> >\n> > The Python programming language, and various other projects, have\n> > taken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n> > \"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n> \n> uh ... i just popped over to that python.org discussion, and it does not\neven\n> *remotely* resemble what you describe. the gist of that discussion is that\n> most people seem opposed to a sweeping change, and are annoyed about all\n> the bandwidth that was wasted by one person harping about this.\n> \n> based on what i read at that link, python has in no way \"taken a\nstance,\" so\n> i'm calling you on your rather egregious misrepresentation of what\nhappened\n> there.\n\nIf you are the repository owner on GitHub, BitBucket, or GitLab, you can\nchange the default published branch to whatever you want, which is primarily\nwhere the publicly visible name would be - discounting private repos.\n\"master\" then becomes irrelevant and you can use \"main\" or \"whatever\".\nHowever, GitLabFlow depends heavily on the name being \"master\" for the\nworkflow to make any sense. The OP might want to take this up with them.\n\n-Randall\n\n"},{"id":"396951","messageId":"CAOAHyQxuRwGpKtBNy3YiocgdktsJ+FJR9Oj35qENh0P7ZGn2+g@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200504174548.r3zaftqcq52yhd2u@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Simon Pieters","fromEmail":"simon@bocoup.com","sentAt":"2020-05-04T18:31:32Z","receivedAt":"2020-05-04T18:31:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"simon@bocoup.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/076d83e195f5a753889d456e5daedcc1a94e3a1464a71f398cbe33827b915097?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:45 PM Konstantin Ryabitsev\n wrote:\n>\n> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 07:20:33PM +0200, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> > \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> > slavery-origin terminology. See\n> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n>\n> Git doesn't use \"master-slave\" terminology -- the \"master\" comes from\n> the concept of having a \"master\" from which copies (branches) are made:\n>\n> https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_recording\n>\n> The concept predates the music business and goes back to middle ages\n> when a guild master would create a \"master work\" or \"master piece\" that\n> the apprentices could use for study or for imitation.\n>\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_craftsman\n>\n> So, while I wholeheartedly support using inclusive language, I think git\n> is in the clear here.\n\nThanks. This may be so, but it's still the case that it can be (and\nhas been) interpreted as being slavery-origin terminology.\n\nIf you decide to not change this, then I think it may still be good to\nadd something like the above to the git documentation (like in [1] and\n[2]), so that projects using git are less inclined to change it for\ntheir projects, and maybe the people who are offended by it would be\nmore comfortable if they know that the project maintainers are aware\nof this issue and could explain why this usage of the word is ok.\n\n[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary#Documentation/gitglossary.txt-aiddefmasteramaster\n[2] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-init\n-- \nSimon Pieters\nBocoup https://bocoup.com/\n"},{"id":"397006","messageId":"20200504231034.GA34485@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"alpine.LFD.2.21.2005041340480.220155@localhost.localdomain","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"N6Ghost","fromEmail":"n6ghost@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-05-04T23:10:34Z","receivedAt":"2020-05-04T23:10:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"n6ghost@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:43:15PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:\n> On Mon, 4 May 2020, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> \n> > \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> > slavery-origin terminology. See\n> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n> >\n> > The Python programming language, and various other projects, have\n> > taken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n> > \"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n> >\n> > When different projects using git decide to move away from \"master\"\n> > as the name of their main branch, inconsistency ensues between\n> > projects. See https://github.com/desktop/desktop/issues/6478 (and\n> > \"Related Issues and Projects\").\n> >\n> > To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n> > think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n> > initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n> > since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n> \n> please, no ... this is just massive and unnecessary churn, and it\n> opens up a ridiculous can of worms. if you change this, then of course\n> you will have to reword everything related to data buses that are\n> defined to work on a \"master-slave\" basis. and would you have to stop\n> describing your competence in a particular field as having attained a\n> \"mastery\" of the subject matter?\n> \n> this is just a bad idea.\n> \n> rday\n\nI would agree, this would be a huge can of worms. and is not really needed. \nthe word \"master\" is embedded in our lexicon in many places. calling out\none historical use, and then saying becuase of that use all the other\nuses can no longer use that word in our lexicon. is just a bad idea.\n\nthats not how language should work.\n\n-N6Ghost\n"},{"id":"397150","messageId":"20200505231641.GH6530@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2020-05-05T23:16:41Z","receivedAt":"2020-05-05T23:17:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2020-05-04 at 17:20:33, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> slavery-origin terminology. See\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n> \n> The Python programming language, and various other projects, have\n> taken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n> \"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n> \n> When different projects using git decide to move away from \"master\" as\n> the name of their main branch, inconsistency ensues between projects.\n> See https://github.com/desktop/desktop/issues/6478 (and \"Related\n> Issues and Projects\").\n> \n> To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n> think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n> initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n> since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n\nI've been busy and haven't had much time to respond to this, but I've\ngotten some feedback from other people on this issue and so I'll share a\nfew thoughts.\n\nOthers have pointed out that \"master\" meaning a canonical source may not\nshare the problematic origins mentioned above. From feedback I've\nreceived, I get the impression that \"master\", even though from a\ndifferent origin, brings the idea of human bondage and suffering to mind\nfor a non-trivial number of people, which of course was not the\nintention and is undesirable. I suspect if we were making the decision\ntoday, we'd pick another name, since that's not what we want people to\nthink of when they use Git.\n\nClearly we have compatibility concerns to consider though, so if we\ndecided to make a change, we'd probably want to make it in a 3.0, which\nas far as I'm aware hasn't been discussed yet. I also wondered what\nsuch a change would involve, so I did some research.\n\nIt appears that if we made the obvious one-line change to\nbuiltin/init-db.c, we'd have 304 tests that fail, which is about a third\nof our test suite. I haven't examined any of these tests, so I don't\nknow what would be involved in changing them. I imagine a project to do\nso would involve setting an environment variable in the test setup code\n(e.g., MAIN_BRANCH) and replacing instances of \"master\" with that until\neverything works with an alternate value of that variable. Picking the\nnew name itself could be deferred until later, and we could choose from\nsome popular alternatives.\n\nThere's also the documentation, which at first glance seems mostly to be\nexamples, many of which could be changed to any suitable branch name.\nThere are a large number of those cases and someone would have to audit\nthem all.\n\nSo it looks like this would be a reasonable amount of work for someone\nif they decided to pick it up as a project. Since I have limited free\ntime and am working on the SHA-256 transition, I won't be doing this,\nbut if someone did pick it up, I would be happy to do some reviews,\nprovide feedback, and include a few patches while doing other work in\nthe area.\n\nI realize there isn't agreement on a direction forward or whether this\nis worth doing at all, but since Git usually operates by providing\nfeedback on an initial set of patches, I thought I'd sketch out what\nthat might look like for folks who were interested.\n\nI should point out that it's also possible for users who dislike the\ncurrent name to use a template to change the default branch name like\nso (using the proposed \"main\"):\n\n mkdir -p ~/Templates/git\n cp -a /usr/share/git-core/templates/* ~/Templates/git\n echo 'ref: refs/heads/main' > ~/Templates/git/HEAD\n git config --global init.templateDir ~/Templates/git\n\nThen \"git init\" will set your default branch to \"main\" instead of\n\"master\". This does have the weirdness that it claims it's\nreinitializing your repository, but otherwise appears to work. That is\nof course orthogonal to changing Git itself, but is an option for folks\nwho'd like to make a change now.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\nOpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n"},{"id":"399347","messageId":"CAOAHyQx=+fM1FpAv+g3M+j7j4MgLJA03=MGFmXLvZcfJKAEpGg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200505231641.GH6530@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Simon Pieters","fromEmail":"simon@bocoup.com","sentAt":"2020-06-09T15:16:57Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T15:17:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"simon@bocoup.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/076d83e195f5a753889d456e5daedcc1a94e3a1464a71f398cbe33827b915097?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Thank you for your encouraging response, Brian, and the research of\nwhat the change entails for git.\n\nI've added Don to the cc, who started to work on implementing this change:\n\nhttps://twitter.com/DEGoodmanWilson/status/1269931743320182784\nhttps://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674\n\nAlthough I think it's reasonable to move away from 'master' regardless\nof its origin, today Tobie Langel pointed me to\nhttps://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html\nwhere, one year ago, Bastien Nocera made the case that git's 'master'\nis in fact a reference to master/slave.\n\nIf someone is interested in helping with this, please follow up with\nDon. But I would like to ask again for git mainline to seriously\nconsider adopting this change, given the information presented above\nand the ongoing movement against systemic racism.\n\ncheers,\n\nOn Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:17 AM brian m. carlson\n wrote:\n>\n> On 2020-05-04 at 17:20:33, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> > \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> > slavery-origin terminology. See\n> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n> >\n> > The Python programming language, and various other projects, have\n> > taken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n> > \"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n> >\n> > When different projects using git decide to move away from \"master\" as\n> > the name of their main branch, inconsistency ensues between projects.\n> > See https://github.com/desktop/desktop/issues/6478 (and \"Related\n> > Issues and Projects\").\n> >\n> > To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n> > think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n> > initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n> > since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n>\n> I've been busy and haven't had much time to respond to this, but I've\n> gotten some feedback from other people on this issue and so I'll share a\n> few thoughts.\n>\n> Others have pointed out that \"master\" meaning a canonical source may not\n> share the problematic origins mentioned above. From feedback I've\n> received, I get the impression that \"master\", even though from a\n> different origin, brings the idea of human bondage and suffering to mind\n> for a non-trivial number of people, which of course was not the\n> intention and is undesirable. I suspect if we were making the decision\n> today, we'd pick another name, since that's not what we want people to\n> think of when they use Git.\n>\n> Clearly we have compatibility concerns to consider though, so if we\n> decided to make a change, we'd probably want to make it in a 3.0, which\n> as far as I'm aware hasn't been discussed yet. I also wondered what\n> such a change would involve, so I did some research.\n>\n> It appears that if we made the obvious one-line change to\n> builtin/init-db.c, we'd have 304 tests that fail, which is about a third\n> of our test suite. I haven't examined any of these tests, so I don't\n> know what would be involved in changing them. I imagine a project to do\n> so would involve setting an environment variable in the test setup code\n> (e.g., MAIN_BRANCH) and replacing instances of \"master\" with that until\n> everything works with an alternate value of that variable. Picking the\n> new name itself could be deferred until later, and we could choose from\n> some popular alternatives.\n>\n> There's also the documentation, which at first glance seems mostly to be\n> examples, many of which could be changed to any suitable branch name.\n> There are a large number of those cases and someone would have to audit\n> them all.\n>\n> So it looks like this would be a reasonable amount of work for someone\n> if they decided to pick it up as a project. Since I have limited free\n> time and am working on the SHA-256 transition, I won't be doing this,\n> but if someone did pick it up, I would be happy to do some reviews,\n> provide feedback, and include a few patches while doing other work in\n> the area.\n>\n> I realize there isn't agreement on a direction forward or whether this\n> is worth doing at all, but since Git usually operates by providing\n> feedback on an initial set of patches, I thought I'd sketch out what\n> that might look like for folks who were interested.\n>\n> I should point out that it's also possible for users who dislike the\n> current name to use a template to change the default branch name like\n> so (using the proposed \"main\"):\n>\n> mkdir -p ~/Templates/git\n> cp -a /usr/share/git-core/templates/* ~/Templates/git\n> echo 'ref: refs/heads/main' > ~/Templates/git/HEAD\n> git config --global init.templateDir ~/Templates/git\n>\n> Then \"git init\" will set your default branch to \"main\" instead of\n> \"master\". This does have the weirdness that it claims it's\n> reinitializing your repository, but otherwise appears to work. That is\n> of course orthogonal to changing Git itself, but is an option for folks\n> who'd like to make a change now.\n> --\n> brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\n> OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n\n\n\n-- \nSimon Pieters\nBocoup https://bocoup.com/\n"},{"id":"399349","messageId":"xmqqeeqoi5wc.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQx=+fM1FpAv+g3M+j7j4MgLJA03=MGFmXLvZcfJKAEpGg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-09T16:02:43Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T16:03:31Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Simon Pieters writes:\n\n> If someone is interested in helping with this, please follow up with\n> Don. But I would like to ask again for git mainline to seriously\n> consider adopting this change, given the information presented above\n> and the ongoing movement against systemic racism.\n\nI am OK in principle if a future version of Git, when used by a new\nuser of Git who does not have any custom configuration, wrote a\nstring other than 'master' in .git/HEAD when \"git init\" is run.\n\nPicking a good replacement word to mean the primary branch is\ntricky, though. Just having a notion that one is special among\nmany (i.e. the primary-ness of the thing being named with a word\nthat will replace 'master') may already be offending to some folks.\n\nAlso notice that the qualified statement above talks only about the\nplain vanilla experience---the change of the default should be\ndesigned to avoid harming workflows in existing repositories and\ntools built around them.\n\nSo, I think there are two separate tasks that can run in parallel.\n\n * Pick the new default word to replace 'master'; it may turn out\n that the Git project choose not to pick any to avoid offending\n anybody, in which case \"git init\" may force end users pick the\n default they want to use and offer recording in the ~/.gitconfig\n file.\n\n * Engineering work that uses the word that replaces 'master' by\n default (if one got chosen) when not configured, and use the word\n the end user chose when configured (iow, allow users to override\n the default word that will replace 'master'). This includes\n design work to decide what to do in existing repositories (if\n there is anything that needs to be done).\n\nWithout digging deeply, I think we are pretty good about basing\nthings on HEAD (e.g. \"git branch -d\" protects the branch by seeing\nif it is already merged to 'HEAD' or its @{upstream}, and not treats\n'master' any specially), so it might be the matter of teaching \"git\ninit\" (it uses 'master' by default) and \"git clone\" (it tries to use\nthe name of the branch the HEAD at origin points at, but falls back\nto 'master' when the branch name their HEAD points at cannot be\ndetermined).\n\n"},{"id":"399350","messageId":"20200609160650.7e74bcjksrto3rp6@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQx=+fM1FpAv+g3M+j7j4MgLJA03=MGFmXLvZcfJKAEpGg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-09T16:06:50Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T16:06:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 05:16:57PM +0200, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> Thank you for your encouraging response, Brian, and the research of\n> what the change entails for git.\n> \n> I've added Don to the cc, who started to work on implementing this change:\n> \n> https://twitter.com/DEGoodmanWilson/status/1269931743320182784\n> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674\n> \n> Although I think it's reasonable to move away from 'master' regardless\n> of its origin, today Tobie Langel pointed me to\n> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html\n> where, one year ago, Bastien Nocera made the case that git's 'master'\n> is in fact a reference to master/slave.\n\nWell, he pointed out that Bitkeeper used this terminology. Git doesn't \nhave any internal concept of \"slave\" -- the only time you see this word \nused in the codebase is in the test suite, and we should absolutely \nchange that.\n\nI am torn on this issue -- I certainly want the project to be inclusive \nto all, but English has a lot of concepts that start with \"master\" and \ndo not trace their origin to subjugation of fellow human beings:\n\n- masterpiece\n- masterful\n- master's degree\n- master copy\n\nMaking this change in git seems like attacking the problem at the wrong \nend.\n\nBranch names are already fully arbitrary in Git -- you can have a repo \nwithout a master branch. Perhaps the best way to address it is to \nintroduce a \"default branch name\" configuration variable, or just work \nwithout any default branches and let the next step after \"git init\" be \n\"git branch\".\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399351","messageId":"CANgJU+UBcT=at+W_248jWp9_SDqb_YLR0DZ6oYqrcv3id0bAVA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqqeeqoi5wc.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"demerphq","fromEmail":"demerphq@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-09T16:28:40Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T16:28:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"demerphq@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 18:05, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> Simon Pieters writes:\n>\n> > If someone is interested in helping with this, please follow up with\n> > Don. But I would like to ask again for git mainline to seriously\n> > consider adopting this change, given the information presented above\n> > and the ongoing movement against systemic racism.\n>\n> I am OK in principle if a future version of Git, when used by a new\n> user of Git who does not have any custom configuration, wrote a\n> string other than 'master' in .git/HEAD when \"git init\" is run.\n>\n> Picking a good replacement word to mean the primary branch is\n> tricky, though. Just having a notion that one is special among\n> many (i.e. the primary-ness of the thing being named with a word\n> that will replace 'master') may already be offending to some folks.\n>\n> Also notice that the qualified statement above talks only about the\n> plain vanilla experience---the change of the default should be\n> designed to avoid harming workflows in existing repositories and\n> tools built around them.\n>\n> So, I think there are two separate tasks that can run in parallel.\n>\n> * Pick the new default word to replace 'master'; it may turn out\n> that the Git project choose not to pick any to avoid offending\n> anybody, in which case \"git init\" may force end users pick the\n> default they want to use and offer recording in the ~/.gitconfig\n> file.\n>\n> * Engineering work that uses the word that replaces 'master' by\n> default (if one got chosen) when not configured, and use the word\n> the end user chose when configured (iow, allow users to override\n> the default word that will replace 'master'). This includes\n> design work to decide what to do in existing repositories (if\n> there is anything that needs to be done).\n>\n> Without digging deeply, I think we are pretty good about basing\n> things on HEAD (e.g. \"git branch -d\" protects the branch by seeing\n> if it is already merged to 'HEAD' or its @{upstream}, and not treats\n> 'master' any specially), so it might be the matter of teaching \"git\n> init\" (it uses 'master' by default) and \"git clone\" (it tries to use\n> the name of the branch the HEAD at origin points at, but falls back\n> to 'master' when the branch name their HEAD points at cannot be\n> determined).\n\nI work on two git repos where we renamed \"master\" to something else.\nBoth have been in heavy use for years, and I don't recall ever hearing\nabout any issues related to the branch rename except in dumb scripts.\nFWIW we renamed because we felt talking about the \"master branch\" in a\ndistributed context would lead to confusing expressions like \"the\nmaster master\". Using something else avoids this double word\nformulation. I definitely find it less confusing when talking about\nthe branch topology of these repos as opposed to the defaults.\n\nYves\n\n\n\n\n\n\n-- \nperl -Mre=debug -e \"/just|another|perl|hacker/\"\n"},{"id":"399355","messageId":"448e4f49-d1f8-94df-4fc7-64cd024e668f@kdbg.org","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqqeeqoi5wc.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Johannes Sixt","fromEmail":"j6t@kdbg.org","sentAt":"2020-06-09T18:10:52Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T18:11:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"j6t@kdbg.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14810926?v=4"},"body":"Am 09.06.20 um 18:02 schrieb Junio C Hamano:\n> so it might be the matter of teaching \"git\n> init\" (it uses 'master' by default) and \"git clone\" (it tries to use\n> the name of the branch the HEAD at origin points at,...\n\nDon't forget the special treatment of \"master\" in fmt-merge-msg.c that\nskips the \" into 'foo'\" part of \"Merge branch 'bar'\".\n\n-- Hannes\n"},{"id":"399360","messageId":"CAGA3LAcDpQQhcmaQG3+s6XNnth54KmNC+padAXXYsc5C33p7kA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200609160650.7e74bcjksrto3rp6@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Don Goodman-Wilson","fromEmail":"don@goodman-wilson.com","sentAt":"2020-06-09T19:01:36Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T19:01:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"don@goodman-wilson.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9819ec326d55ea4c398b8ff018dcf63b4e9603b00db9cc019c725bffc9c05d17?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Konstantin,\n\nMy feelings generally are: if you have to explain why it isn’t racist,\nthen there’s probably a better alternative. But in this case it\nappears the roots really are in problematic terminology.\n\nAnyway, you’ll be pleased to know that as a first step, my current\nwork is focused on making the default branch name configurable via\n`git config` or environment variables. I’m working on a good clean\npatch for that functionality this week. I'll share more once the patch\nis looking better.\n\nDon Goodman-Wilson\n\nOn Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:06 PM Konstantin Ryabitsev\n wrote:\n>\n> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 05:16:57PM +0200, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> > Thank you for your encouraging response, Brian, and the research of\n> > what the change entails for git.\n> >\n> > I've added Don to the cc, who started to work on implementing this change:\n> >\n> > https://twitter.com/DEGoodmanWilson/status/1269931743320182784\n> > https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674\n> >\n> > Although I think it's reasonable to move away from 'master' regardless\n> > of its origin, today Tobie Langel pointed me to\n> > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html\n> > where, one year ago, Bastien Nocera made the case that git's 'master'\n> > is in fact a reference to master/slave.\n>\n> Well, he pointed out that Bitkeeper used this terminology. Git doesn't\n> have any internal concept of \"slave\" -- the only time you see this word\n> used in the codebase is in the test suite, and we should absolutely\n> change that.\n>\n> I am torn on this issue -- I certainly want the project to be inclusive\n> to all, but English has a lot of concepts that start with \"master\" and\n> do not trace their origin to subjugation of fellow human beings:\n>\n> - masterpiece\n> - masterful\n> - master's degree\n> - master copy\n>\n> Making this change in git seems like attacking the problem at the wrong\n> end.\n>\n> Branch names are already fully arbitrary in Git -- you can have a repo\n> without a master branch. Perhaps the best way to address it is to\n> introduce a \"default branch name\" configuration variable, or just work\n> without any default branches and let the next step after \"git init\" be\n> \"git branch\".\n>\n> -K\n"},{"id":"399361","messageId":"xmqq5zc0hxk6.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"448e4f49-d1f8-94df-4fc7-64cd024e668f@kdbg.org","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-09T19:02:49Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T19:02:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Sixt writes:\n\n> Am 09.06.20 um 18:02 schrieb Junio C Hamano:\n>> so it might be the matter of teaching \"git\n>> init\" (it uses 'master' by default) and \"git clone\" (it tries to use\n>> the name of the branch the HEAD at origin points at,...\n>\n> Don't forget the special treatment of \"master\" in fmt-merge-msg.c that\n> skips the \" into 'foo'\" part of \"Merge branch 'bar'\".\n\nYup, that certainly needs to be taken into consideration in this\ntopic. There may be more that we are forgetting.\n\n"},{"id":"399367","messageId":"CAOAHyQzxG7Lc6+PLBtM6oe9vSoEEAmuXAaKF2VzO_phtkfGRVA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqqeeqoi5wc.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Simon Pieters","fromEmail":"simon@bocoup.com","sentAt":"2020-06-09T20:52:28Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T20:52:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"simon@bocoup.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/076d83e195f5a753889d456e5daedcc1a94e3a1464a71f398cbe33827b915097?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hi Junio,\n\nOn Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:02 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> Simon Pieters writes:\n>\n> > If someone is interested in helping with this, please follow up with\n> > Don. But I would like to ask again for git mainline to seriously\n> > consider adopting this change, given the information presented above\n> > and the ongoing movement against systemic racism.\n>\n> I am OK in principle if a future version of Git, when used by a new\n> user of Git who does not have any custom configuration, wrote a\n> string other than 'master' in .git/HEAD when \"git init\" is run.\n>\n> Picking a good replacement word to mean the primary branch is\n> tricky, though. Just having a notion that one is special among\n> many (i.e. the primary-ness of the thing being named with a word\n> that will replace 'master') may already be offending to some folks.\n\nI find this response not satisfactory:\n\n- as far as I can tell, no evidence that \"main\" offends anyone.\n- git trying to be neutral by not having any default name seems like a\nweak response to this issue.\n- having users have to pick a branch name when initiating a repo\nincreases the burden on users and makes the learning curve steeper for\nbeginners.\n- git not being opinionated on the branch name doesn't address the\ninconsistency problem pointed out in the original post.\n- while git itself could avoid having a default branch name, platforms\nthat use git such as GitHub or GitLab will still likely want a\ndefault.\n\nI think git can lead the way and make things inclusive, consistent,\nand not regress on usability.\n\ncheers,\n\n> Also notice that the qualified statement above talks only about the\n> plain vanilla experience---the change of the default should be\n> designed to avoid harming workflows in existing repositories and\n> tools built around them.\n>\n> So, I think there are two separate tasks that can run in parallel.\n>\n> * Pick the new default word to replace 'master'; it may turn out\n> that the Git project choose not to pick any to avoid offending\n> anybody, in which case \"git init\" may force end users pick the\n> default they want to use and offer recording in the ~/.gitconfig\n> file.\n>\n> * Engineering work that uses the word that replaces 'master' by\n> default (if one got chosen) when not configured, and use the word\n> the end user chose when configured (iow, allow users to override\n> the default word that will replace 'master'). This includes\n> design work to decide what to do in existing repositories (if\n> there is anything that needs to be done).\n>\n> Without digging deeply, I think we are pretty good about basing\n> things on HEAD (e.g. \"git branch -d\" protects the branch by seeing\n> if it is already merged to 'HEAD' or its @{upstream}, and not treats\n> 'master' any specially), so it might be the matter of teaching \"git\n> init\" (it uses 'master' by default) and \"git clone\" (it tries to use\n> the name of the branch the HEAD at origin points at, but falls back\n> to 'master' when the branch name their HEAD points at cannot be\n> determined).\n>\n\n\n--\nSimon Pieters\nBocoup https://bocoup.com/\n-- \nSimon Pieters\nhttps://bocoup.com/\n"},{"id":"399368","messageId":"xmqqo8psgddz.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQzxG7Lc6+PLBtM6oe9vSoEEAmuXAaKF2VzO_phtkfGRVA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-09T21:03:52Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T21:04:00Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Simon Pieters writes:\n\n> Hi Junio,\n>\n> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:02 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>\n>> Simon Pieters writes:\n>>\n>> > If someone is interested in helping with this, please follow up with\n>> > Don. But I would like to ask again for git mainline to seriously\n>> > consider adopting this change, given the information presented above\n>> > and the ongoing movement against systemic racism.\n>>\n>> I am OK in principle if a future version of Git, when used by a new\n>> user of Git who does not have any custom configuration, wrote a\n>> string other than 'master' in .git/HEAD when \"git init\" is run.\n>>\n>> Picking a good replacement word to mean the primary branch is\n>> tricky, though. Just having a notion that one is special among\n>> many (i.e. the primary-ness of the thing being named with a word\n>> that will replace 'master') may already be offending to some folks.\n>\n> I find this response not satisfactory:\n\nAnd I find that response quite offensive.\n\nI am not saying that there is any good replacement word, or there\nshouldn't be one, or we shouldn't look for it. If we can come up\nwith a single replacement word and everybody can agree on it, that\nwould be great.\n\nI am just cautioning you that we may not be able to reach a single\nword as a concensus, and you should plan with the possibility in\nmind.\n\nIn any case, I wasn't responding to satisfy just you in particular\nanyway ;-)\n"},{"id":"399369","messageId":"CAOAHyQyn_ow7_nCJ+Jorr76_=1=_kuBAD1KhqReqVfRQQbmgiw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqqo8psgddz.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Simon Pieters","fromEmail":"simon@bocoup.com","sentAt":"2020-06-09T21:29:22Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T21:29:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"simon@bocoup.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/076d83e195f5a753889d456e5daedcc1a94e3a1464a71f398cbe33827b915097?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:03 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> > I find this response not satisfactory:\n>\n> And I find that response quite offensive.\n\nI'm sorry I offended you.\n\n> I am not saying that there is any good replacement word, or there\n> shouldn't be one, or we shouldn't look for it. If we can come up\n> with a single replacement word and everybody can agree on it, that\n> would be great.\n\nOK. I agree!\n\n> I am just cautioning you that we may not be able to reach a single\n> word as a concensus, and you should plan with the possibility in\n> mind.\n\nOK.\n\n> In any case, I wasn't responding to satisfy just you in particular\n> anyway ;-)\n\nYeah, and indeed this issue is not about me. :-)\n\n-- \nSimon Pieters\nBocoup https://bocoup.com/\n"},{"id":"399372","messageId":"20200609223624.GO6569@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQx=+fM1FpAv+g3M+j7j4MgLJA03=MGFmXLvZcfJKAEpGg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2020-06-09T22:36:24Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-09T22:36:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2020-06-09 at 15:16:57, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> Thank you for your encouraging response, Brian, and the research of\n> what the change entails for git.\n> \n> I've added Don to the cc, who started to work on implementing this change:\n> \n> https://twitter.com/DEGoodmanWilson/status/1269931743320182784\n> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674\n\nI'm familiar with those discussions. As previously mentioned, I'm happy\nto review any patches that come up and contribute myself as time allows.\n\n> Although I think it's reasonable to move away from 'master' regardless\n> of its origin, today Tobie Langel pointed me to\n> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html\n> where, one year ago, Bastien Nocera made the case that git's 'master'\n> is in fact a reference to master/slave.\n\nI agree with the assessment that we should change regardless. If it is\na master/slave reference, then that would be even more compelling as a\nreason to change.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\nOpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n"},{"id":"399402","messageId":"alpine.LFD.2.21.2006100549070.3771@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQzxG7Lc6+PLBtM6oe9vSoEEAmuXAaKF2VzO_phtkfGRVA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Robert P. J. Day","fromEmail":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","sentAt":"2020-06-10T09:51:24Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-10T10:50:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/226084077?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, Simon Pieters wrote:\n\n> Hi Junio,\n>\n> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:02 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> >\n> > Simon Pieters writes:\n> >\n> > > If someone is interested in helping with this, please follow up with\n> > > Don. But I would like to ask again for git mainline to seriously\n> > > consider adopting this change, given the information presented above\n> > > and the ongoing movement against systemic racism.\n> >\n> > I am OK in principle if a future version of Git, when used by a new\n> > user of Git who does not have any custom configuration, wrote a\n> > string other than 'master' in .git/HEAD when \"git init\" is run.\n> >\n> > Picking a good replacement word to mean the primary branch is\n> > tricky, though. Just having a notion that one is special among\n> > many (i.e. the primary-ness of the thing being named with a word\n> > that will replace 'master') may already be offending to some folks.\n>\n> I find this response not satisfactory:\n\n ... snip ...\n\n\"I can't breathe ... I can't breathe ...\"\n\n\"Well, tell you what, what if we rename the initial default branch in\na distributed version control system for you?\"\n\n *Now* do you understand how asinine all this sounds?\n\nrday\n"},{"id":"399403","messageId":"CAEwB0hhOUWiS80OPLWp1rZ4HKKn9GaXts+r30xQh=kPx2KQ_Pw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"alpine.LFD.2.21.2006100549070.3771@localhost.localdomain","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Kevin Swinton","fromEmail":"kevin.swinton@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-10T11:16:13Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-10T11:16:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kevin.swinton@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"May I just add to this part of the conversation by pointing out that\nif people are concerned that the use of the word \"master\" for the main\nbranch name is offensive, there will also need to be subsequent\nconsideration for the name of the project itself: \"git\" is, for some,\nnothing more than derogatory slang with no particularly positive\nconnotations.\n\nIt becomes arguable that if people wish to avoid (for example) the\nupcoming generation from acclimatising/normalising usage of the word\n\"master\", that same principle could also encroach upon the name of the\ntool itself.\n\nShare and enjoy.\n\nK\n\n\nOn Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 11:51, Robert P. J. Day wrote:\n>\n> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, Simon Pieters wrote:\n>\n> > Hi Junio,\n> >\n> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:02 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> > >\n> > > Simon Pieters writes:\n> > >\n> > > > If someone is interested in helping with this, please follow up with\n> > > > Don. But I would like to ask again for git mainline to seriously\n> > > > consider adopting this change, given the information presented above\n> > > > and the ongoing movement against systemic racism.\n> > >\n> > > I am OK in principle if a future version of Git, when used by a new\n> > > user of Git who does not have any custom configuration, wrote a\n> > > string other than 'master' in .git/HEAD when \"git init\" is run.\n> > >\n> > > Picking a good replacement word to mean the primary branch is\n> > > tricky, though. Just having a notion that one is special among\n> > > many (i.e. the primary-ness of the thing being named with a word\n> > > that will replace 'master') may already be offending to some folks.\n> >\n> > I find this response not satisfactory:\n>\n> ... snip ...\n>\n> \"I can't breathe ... I can't breathe ...\"\n>\n> \"Well, tell you what, what if we rename the initial default branch in\n> a distributed version control system for you?\"\n>\n> *Now* do you understand how asinine all this sounds?\n>\n> rday\n"},{"id":"399406","messageId":"CAGA3LAed-QZNiMhEPBmjV2noVgLON4ciJZNsmZ5ZhTFSC2WeKg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"alpine.LFD.2.21.2006100549070.3771@localhost.localdomain","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Don Goodman-Wilson","fromEmail":"don@goodman-wilson.com","sentAt":"2020-06-10T12:18:00Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-10T12:18:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"don@goodman-wilson.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9819ec326d55ea4c398b8ff018dcf63b4e9603b00db9cc019c725bffc9c05d17?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Robert,\n\nIf this were the _only_ effort being made, I would agree. It's a small\nthing. But lots of small things add up, and they make the big things\nworse. So, because it is small doesn't mean it's not important, or\nthat it can be ignored. Indeed, that is a sign of privilege, to be\nable ignore the small things that seem unimportant in isolation. Thus,\nof course this is not the only action I am taking at present, I take a\nmulti-faceted approach to my activism, and I encourage you to do the\nsame.\n\nI think my friend Mislav has a much more eloquent response that is\nworth reading: https://twitter.com/mislav/status/1270388510684598272\n\nDon Goodman-Wilson\n\nOn Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:51 AM Robert P. J. Day wrote:\n>\n> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, Simon Pieters wrote:\n>\n> > Hi Junio,\n> >\n> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:02 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> > >\n> > > Simon Pieters writes:\n> > >\n> > > > If someone is interested in helping with this, please follow up with\n> > > > Don. But I would like to ask again for git mainline to seriously\n> > > > consider adopting this change, given the information presented above\n> > > > and the ongoing movement against systemic racism.\n> > >\n> > > I am OK in principle if a future version of Git, when used by a new\n> > > user of Git who does not have any custom configuration, wrote a\n> > > string other than 'master' in .git/HEAD when \"git init\" is run.\n> > >\n> > > Picking a good replacement word to mean the primary branch is\n> > > tricky, though. Just having a notion that one is special among\n> > > many (i.e. the primary-ness of the thing being named with a word\n> > > that will replace 'master') may already be offending to some folks.\n> >\n> > I find this response not satisfactory:\n>\n> ... snip ...\n>\n> \"I can't breathe ... I can't breathe ...\"\n>\n> \"Well, tell you what, what if we rename the initial default branch in\n> a distributed version control system for you?\"\n>\n> *Now* do you understand how asinine all this sounds?\n>\n> rday\n"},{"id":"399414","messageId":"CAMwyc-R181SwjocmfHvG5U00GYu_D0MVvo7L=6KpPUDOObe9iQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAed-QZNiMhEPBmjV2noVgLON4ciJZNsmZ5ZhTFSC2WeKg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-10T16:30:52Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-10T16:31:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 08:18, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> If this were the _only_ effort being made, I would agree. It's a small\n> thing. But lots of small things add up, and they make the big things\n> worse. So, because it is small doesn't mean it's not important, or\n> that it can be ignored. Indeed, that is a sign of privilege, to be\n> able ignore the small things that seem unimportant in isolation. Thus,\n> of course this is not the only action I am taking at present, I take a\n> multi-faceted approach to my activism, and I encourage you to do the\n> same.\n\nCurious, what are your plans regarding your Master of Arts degree?\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399461","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006091126540.482@ZVAVAG-DN14RQO.ybpnyqbznva","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200505231641.GH6530@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-10T21:30:31Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-10T21:30:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi all,\n\nOn Tue, 5 May 2020, brian m. carlson wrote:\n\n> On 2020-05-04 at 17:20:33, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> > \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> > slavery-origin terminology. See\n> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n> >\n> > The Python programming language, and various other projects, have\n> > taken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n> > \"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n> >\n> > When different projects using git decide to move away from \"master\" as\n> > the name of their main branch, inconsistency ensues between projects.\n> > See https://github.com/desktop/desktop/issues/6478 (and \"Related\n> > Issues and Projects\").\n> >\n> > To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n> > think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n> > initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n> > since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n>\n> I've been busy and haven't had much time to respond to this, but I've\n> gotten some feedback from other people on this issue and so I'll share a\n> few thoughts.\n>\n> Others have pointed out that \"master\" meaning a canonical source may not\n> share the problematic origins mentioned above. From feedback I've\n> received, I get the impression that \"master\", even though from a\n> different origin, brings the idea of human bondage and suffering to mind\n> for a non-trivial number of people, which of course was not the\n> intention and is undesirable. I suspect if we were making the decision\n> today, we'd pick another name, since that's not what we want people to\n> think of when they use Git.\n\nIndeed.\n\nI have to admit that I did not understand the breadth of how problematic\nsuch a term is. I am a Caucasian male, and in the society in which I grew\nup, that comes with a lot of privilege that I am only beginning to\nunderstand in its entirety. One of the consequences was that I was\nunaware, even oblivious, to the emotional response certain terms can\nelicit. Just because those terms do not affect me very much, personally,\ndoes not imply that I don't care. So I will try to do my share in helping\nwith this topic. It might not be much, in the bigger picture, yet together\nwith other, equally small steps, we might be able to do some good.\n\nA growing number of projects does indeed rename their default branches,\nand I want to do the same with Git for Windows' repositories.\n\nI have reached out to Billy Griffin (the PM of GitHub Desktop) to learn\nwhat might be good candidates for the default branch name, as GitHub\nDesktop changed their repository's main branch name recently. This is what\nhe told me:\n\n\t[W]e did some research looking at the data at GitHub of the most\n\tcommonly used default branch names other than `master`. Most of them\n\twere things like develop, release, staging, stable, production, etc.\n\tthat denoted some stage of the software lifecycle. We thought that\n\tnone of these are good options because a universally applicable\n\tdefault name should allow for teams and projects to work in\n\tdifferent ways (and obviously if teams want to change it to reflect\n\ttheir workflows, they're free to do so just like they do today - we\n\tuse `development` as the default branch in desktop/desktop, for\n\texample).\n\n\tThe three most common names that *weren't* in that category were\n\tmain, trunk, and source. \"Trunk\" has roots in SVN so there's some\n\tprecedent for it, but we've heard feedback that it's not\n\tparticularly intuitive for non-native English speakers, and \"source\"\n\tin my opinion isn't accurate because it's only a single branch, not\n\tthe entire source. We've also seen \"default\" floated and it exists\n\tin mercurial, but we've also heard feedback that it's potentially\n\tsensitive due to financial default, so we might as well choose\n\tsomething else if there's another good option.\n\n\tFor that reason, we're thinking that `main` would likely be a good\n\tchoice because the name corresponds nicely to its purpose as the\n\tdefault branch of a repo. It's also conveniently short to type,\n\tand tab complete would continue to *just work* for those concerned\n\tabout muscle memory because the first two letters are the same as\n\t`master`.\n\nSo I plan on using `main` for the repositories in the\nhttps://github.com/git-for-windows org.\n\nBilly then shared this information with James Ramsay of GitLab to\ndiscuss how GitHub and GitLab can coordinate on changing the default\nbranch name in new repositories. Here is the GitLab ticket to track\ntheir progress: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/220906\n\n> Clearly we have compatibility concerns to consider though, so if we\n> decided to make a change, we'd probably want to make it in a 3.0, which\n> as far as I'm aware hasn't been discussed yet. I also wondered what\n> such a change would involve, so I did some research.\n>\n> It appears that if we made the obvious one-line change to\n> builtin/init-db.c, we'd have 304 tests that fail, which is about a third\n> of our test suite. I haven't examined any of these tests, so I don't\n> know what would be involved in changing them. I imagine a project to do\n> so would involve setting an environment variable in the test setup code\n> (e.g., MAIN_BRANCH) and replacing instances of \"master\" with that until\n> everything works with an alternate value of that variable. Picking the\n> new name itself could be deferred until later, and we could choose from\n> some popular alternatives.\n\nAs mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Don (Cc:ed) and I started working\non this, and I just submitted it:\nhttps://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.656.git.1591823971.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/\nThat patch series adds a config variable allowing to override the default\nname of the default branch.\n\nI hope to see this finalized and sent off to the Git mailing list\nrelatively soon: being strictly opt-in, it should be really\nuncontroversial and obviously helpful.\n\n> There's also the documentation, which at first glance seems mostly to be\n> examples, many of which could be changed to any suitable branch name.\n> There are a large number of those cases and someone would have to audit\n> them all.\n\nIndeed.\n\nThe good news is that this audit can be split between multiple volunteers.\n\n> So it looks like this would be a reasonable amount of work for someone\n> if they decided to pick it up as a project. Since I have limited free\n> time and am working on the SHA-256 transition, I won't be doing this,\n> but if someone did pick it up, I would be happy to do some reviews,\n> provide feedback, and include a few patches while doing other work in\n> the area.\n\nBased on the above-mentioned patch series, I have an end-to-end\nproof-of-concept (with one or two monster patches that still need to be\nsplit up) to change the default branch name to `main`. It is complete in\nthe sense that it passes the test suite (also in SHA-256 mode when merging\nthe `bk/transition-stage-4` branch), but it has a couple of too-large\ncommits that still need to be split up:\nhttps://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/655\n\nI agree with brian that it was _quite_ a decent amount of work, and that\nit will still require a decent amount of work going forward.\n\nMy current plan is to split this up into several patch series:\n\n- above-mentioned patch series was already split out, and submitted for\n review, introducing `core.defaultBranchName` (and\n `GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_BRANCH_NAME`).\n\n From my point of view, this would be safe to have even as early as\n in Git v2.28.0.\n\n- a patch series that tackles the hard parts of the test suite: one by\n one, the test scripts will be patched to include\n\n\tGIT_TEST_DEFAULT_BRANCH_NAME=main\n\texport GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_BRANCH_NAME\n\n at the beginning, and they will be patched to pass.\n\n This patch series should only be accepted once there is consensus (see\n below for more on that).\n\n- a patch series to tackle the easy parts of the test suite, i.e. the\n scripts that needed only automated patching (`sed` magic).\n\n This patch series should only be accepted once (if!) the previous one\n was accepted.\n\n- a patch that moves the GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_BRANCH_NAME assignment to\n `t/test-lib.sh` to ensure that the entire test suite passes with the\n designated new default branch name.\n\n This patch really only makes sense once consensus is reached not only\n that we want to change the default branch name, but also to what name\n it should be changed.\n\n The main intention of this patch is to ensure that the test suite keeps\n working with the new default branch name during the (probably quite\n long) time when Git holds off from \"flipping the switch\", i.e. until the\n above-proposed Git v3.0.\n\n- a patch series that changes the default, and then addresses all of the\n documentation and the error messages mentioning the default branch name.\n\n This would conclude that effort.\n\nOr maybe there are a couple more natural seams at which to partition\nthose patches better, to improve reviewability (and to reduce\nreviewer fatigue).\n\n> I realize there isn't agreement on a direction forward or whether this\n> is worth doing at all, but since Git usually operates by providing\n> feedback on an initial set of patches, I thought I'd sketch out what\n> that might look like for folks who were interested.\n\nThank you for doing this.\n\nAs you hint, there are the technical challenges, but also the cultural\nchallenges. I think I outlined a sensible path forward to address the\ntechnical challenges above, and now I would like to talk about a path\nforward to address the social/cultural ones.\n\nI do realize, of course, that as a white person identifying as male, there\nis a real big risk that my efforts look as if I want to force everybody to\naccept a new default branch name, to adjust their tools and scripts, their\nworkflows, for maybe not a big enough gain to be worth all that work.\n\nSo let me make my intentions clear: I do care about inclusive language,\nand even more so about inclusive culture, and I would like Git to be\nchanged accordingly.\n\nAnd as I learned from personal conversations with friends and colleagues,\nas well as from stories and books, Git's current default branch name is\neliciting emotional distress.\n\nEncouraged by Emily in #git-devel (who pointed out that a subject like\nthis is much better discussed seeing each others faces and hearing each\nothers voices), I would like to organize another Virtual Contributor\nSummit, this time focused on inclusive language in Git, what we can do\nabout it, and what we should do about it (or not).\n\nTentatively, I would like to propose having this meeting in the coming\nweek, via Zoom, just like we did the Virtual Contributor Summit last\nSeptember.\n\nCould I ask all interested parties to reply to this email?\n\n> I should point out that it's also possible for users who dislike the\n> current name to use a template to change the default branch name like\n> so (using the proposed \"main\"):\n>\n> mkdir -p ~/Templates/git\n> cp -a /usr/share/git-core/templates/* ~/Templates/git\n> echo 'ref: refs/heads/main' > ~/Templates/git/HEAD\n> git config --global init.templateDir ~/Templates/git\n>\n> Then \"git init\" will set your default branch to \"main\" instead of\n> \"master\". This does have the weirdness that it claims it's\n> reinitializing your repository, but otherwise appears to work. That is\n> of course orthogonal to changing Git itself, but is an option for folks\n> who'd like to make a change now.\n\nThat's a pretty good workaround in the meantime.\n\nI would like to point out that there are two slight issues with this\nworkaround, in addition to the \"re-initializing\" message:\n\n- copies of Git's templates can become stale during upgrades, as newer\n versions of Git might come with modified template files.\n\n- Git's template files are sometimes used to install a set of hooks that\n was aggregated by the administrator(s). This workaround would interfere\n with that, at least if the set of pre-configured hooks gets modified.\n\nFor those reasons, I hope that the `core.defaultBranchName` patch will be\non its way into git/git soon.\n\nThank you,\nJohannes\n\n> --\n> brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\n> OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n>\n"},{"id":"399464","messageId":"20200610223511.GA7@830aadfce907","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006091126540.482@ZVAVAG-DN14RQO.ybpnyqbznva","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Edward Thomson","fromEmail":"ethomson@edwardthomson.com","sentAt":"2020-06-10T22:35:26Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-10T22:35:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ethomson@edwardthomson.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1130014?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:30:31PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> Tentatively, I would like to propose having this meeting in the coming\n> week, via Zoom, just like we did the Virtual Contributor Summit last\n> September.\n> \n> Could I ask all interested parties to reply to this email?\n\nYes, I'd like to be in attendance; this is a fundamental change that's\nrelevant to the libgit2 project's interests.\n\nThanks-\n-ed\n"},{"id":"399466","messageId":"20200610225137.GS6569@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006091126540.482@ZVAVAG-DN14RQO.ybpnyqbznva","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2020-06-10T22:51:37Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-10T22:52:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2020-06-10 at 21:30:31, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Based on the above-mentioned patch series, I have an end-to-end\n> proof-of-concept (with one or two monster patches that still need to be\n> split up) to change the default branch name to `main`. It is complete in\n> the sense that it passes the test suite (also in SHA-256 mode when merging\n> the `bk/transition-stage-4` branch), but it has a couple of too-large\n> commits that still need to be split up:\n> https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/655\n\nI appreciate you working on these patches and also your consideration\nfor the SHA-256 work.\n\n> Or maybe there are a couple more natural seams at which to partition\n> those patches better, to improve reviewability (and to reduce\n> reviewer fatigue).\n\nI think if you can split out the automated portions into their own\npatches, then it will be easier to review. It sounds like you're\nalready planning on doing that, so I don't have many other suggestions.\nI look forward to seeing the patches.\n\n> So let me make my intentions clear: I do care about inclusive language,\n> and even more so about inclusive culture, and I would like Git to be\n> changed accordingly.\n\nThank you for saying this. I agree wholeheartedly, and I feel very\nstrongly that the words we use matter.\n\n> Tentatively, I would like to propose having this meeting in the coming\n> week, via Zoom, just like we did the Virtual Contributor Summit last\n> September.\n> \n> Could I ask all interested parties to reply to this email?\n\nI'm interested in participating as well.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\nOpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n"},{"id":"399510","messageId":"20200611115215.GQ21462@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006091126540.482@ZVAVAG-DN14RQO.ybpnyqbznva","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2020-06-11T11:52:15Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-11T11:52:20Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:30:31PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi all,\n> \n> On Tue, 5 May 2020, brian m. carlson wrote:\n> \n> > On 2020-05-04 at 17:20:33, Simon Pieters wrote:\n...\n> > Clearly we have compatibility concerns to consider though, so if we\n> > decided to make a change, we'd probably want to make it in a 3.0, which\n> > as far as I'm aware hasn't been discussed yet. I also wondered what\n> > such a change would involve, so I did some research.\n> >\n> > It appears that if we made the obvious one-line change to\n> > builtin/init-db.c, we'd have 304 tests that fail, which is about a third\n> > of our test suite. I haven't examined any of these tests, so I don't\n> > know what would be involved in changing them. I imagine a project to do\n> > so would involve setting an environment variable in the test setup code\n> > (e.g., MAIN_BRANCH) and replacing instances of \"master\" with that until\n> > everything works with an alternate value of that variable. Picking the\n> > new name itself could be deferred until later, and we could choose from\n> > some popular alternatives.\n> \n> As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Don (Cc:ed) and I started working\n> on this, and I just submitted it:\n> https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.656.git.1591823971.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/\n> That patch series adds a config variable allowing to override the default\n> name of the default branch.\n> \n> I hope to see this finalized and sent off to the Git mailing list\n> relatively soon: being strictly opt-in, it should be really\n> uncontroversial and obviously helpful.\n\nIndeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\nhelpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\nspeaking projects.\n\nTo that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\nchoose the default branch name per project. This should select the\ninitial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\nthe repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\nspecially).\n\nThis can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\nwithout breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n\nThe default branch name will not be preserved across clones but today\nprojects that choose different default branch name don't get the default\nbranch special treatment in anyway clones so I don't see that as a\nregression.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"399511","messageId":"CAGA3LAfpoXDQryOPGg3g-4brpUcSAhL_2VOw8oy6D2ffp64hag@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200611115215.GQ21462@kitsune.suse.cz","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Don Goodman-Wilson","fromEmail":"don@goodman-wilson.com","sentAt":"2020-06-11T11:59:38Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-11T11:59:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"don@goodman-wilson.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9819ec326d55ea4c398b8ff018dcf63b4e9603b00db9cc019c725bffc9c05d17?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n> Indeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\n> helpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\n> speaking projects.\n>\n> To that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\n> choose the default branch name per project. This should select the\n> initial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\n> the repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\n> specially).\n>\n> This can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\n> without breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n\nI _really_ like this idea (and your reasoning). Seconded.\n\nDon Goodman-Wilson\n"},{"id":"399531","messageId":"f27450d8-59a1-dc0b-f741-c8c883b95fe0@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAfpoXDQryOPGg3g-4brpUcSAhL_2VOw8oy6D2ffp64hag@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Derrick Stolee","fromEmail":"stolee@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-11T12:52:25Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-11T12:52:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stolee@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/570044?v=4"},"body":"On 6/11/2020 7:59 AM, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n>> Indeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\n>> helpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\n>> speaking projects.\n>>\n>> To that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\n>> choose the default branch name per project. This should select the\n>> initial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\n>> the repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\n>> specially).\n>>\n>> This can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\n>> without breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n> \n> I _really_ like this idea (and your reasoning). Seconded.\n\nYes, adding a -b|--branch option would be an excellent addition to\nthe config option.\n\nThanks,\n-Stolee\n"},{"id":"399542","messageId":"xmqqlfktbpnf.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"f27450d8-59a1-dc0b-f741-c8c883b95fe0@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-11T15:14:44Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-11T15:14:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Derrick Stolee writes:\n\n> On 6/11/2020 7:59 AM, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n>>> Indeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\n>>> helpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\n>>> speaking projects.\n>>>\n>>> To that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\n>>> choose the default branch name per project. This should select the\n>>> initial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\n>>> the repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\n>>> specially).\n>>>\n>>> This can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\n>>> without breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n>> \n>> I _really_ like this idea (and your reasoning). Seconded.\n>\n> Yes, adding a -b|--branch option would be an excellent addition to\n> the config option.\n\nIn the ideal world, users should be able to just set\ninit.defaultBranchName in ~/.gitconfig once and forget about it.\nBut it is expected that some projects and their tools may heavily\ndepend on the assumption that the primary branch is called 'master'.\nGiving a command line override like \"init -b\" (and do not forget to\ndo the same for \"clone\" as necessary) is a good escape hatch for\nmembers of such projects.\n\nGood.\n"},{"id":"399586","messageId":"bef39243-806f-7c4a-c3d1-f3500ec377be@iee.email","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"f27450d8-59a1-dc0b-f741-c8c883b95fe0@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Philip Oakley","fromEmail":"philipoakley@iee.email","sentAt":"2020-06-12T13:21:35Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-12T13:21:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philipoakley@iee.email","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/914343?v=4"},"body":"On 11/06/2020 13:52, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n> On 6/11/2020 7:59 AM, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n>>> Indeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\n>>> helpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\n>>> speaking projects.\n>>>\n>>> To that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\n>>> choose the default branch name per project. This should select the\n>>> initial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\n>>> the repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\n>>> specially).\n>>>\n>>> This can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\n>>> without breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n>> I _really_ like this idea (and your reasoning). Seconded.\n> Yes, adding a -b|--branch option would be an excellent addition to\n> the config option.\n>\n>\nIs their also an option to also add an option to `git clone` to (re)set\nthe default branch name offered by the upstream to that provided?\n\nAlternatively provide a `--no-checkout` option for the clone so that\neither no actual checkout is performed, or maybe that a detached head\ncheckout is performed so that users can name their default branch\nappropriately.\n\nIn some cases a true --no-checkout may be the 'best' thing to do to\navoid the user mental model confusion about needing to have a local\nbranch matching an upstream branch before they can start their work on\ntop of it (hopefully with a fresh branch name).\n\nPhilip\n"},{"id":"399674","messageId":"9accf436-4b7a-2de2-de79-e81ec090dfc9@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-13T23:53:26Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-13T23:53:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"The perpetually offended strikes again. It's very problematic to let \npeople police other's language. This is something literally out of 1984.\n\n"},{"id":"399675","messageId":"ae1d72d3-ecfb-f2be-5a68-486c159f0931@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200505231641.GH6530@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-13T23:56:55Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-13T23:57:02Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"There will always someone that will take offense to literally anything. \nIt's absurd to try and sanitize everything with fear that someone, \nsomewhere, someday will just get offended by something.\n"},{"id":"399676","messageId":"32b2d17c-71df-4c10-72d7-9696f1cb17a9@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQzxG7Lc6+PLBtM6oe9vSoEEAmuXAaKF2VzO_phtkfGRVA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T00:00:41Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T00:00:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":" >as far as I can tell, no evidence that \"main\" offends anyone.\n\nI'm offended by \"main\". What now?\n\n"},{"id":"399677","messageId":"4429c75f-c240-64a0-f1f8-7a5fead337c3@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAed-QZNiMhEPBmjV2noVgLON4ciJZNsmZ5ZhTFSC2WeKg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T00:03:20Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T00:03:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Could you please take your activism somewhere else? I'm kind of sick of \nentitled, rich, virtue signaling americans trying to make their problems \neveryone else's problem too.\n\n"},{"id":"399678","messageId":"fcad8e8f-e853-d754-e3f7-644a5c717f84@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAcDpQQhcmaQG3+s6XNnth54KmNC+padAXXYsc5C33p7kA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T00:05:33Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T00:05:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"No one here has to explain why something not racist is racist. The \nproblem are the perpetually offended that see racism in literally \neverywhere. Specially when there's virtue signaling points in the table.\n\n"},{"id":"399679","messageId":"CABPp-BHF7KDLw7_VtSokpOuOr_tX2DTNu31B58P83R3HK=YVvA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"bef39243-806f-7c4a-c3d1-f3500ec377be@iee.email","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Elijah Newren","fromEmail":"newren@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T00:41:48Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T00:42:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"newren@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5455730?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:23 AM Philip Oakley wrote:\n>\n> On 11/06/2020 13:52, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n> > On 6/11/2020 7:59 AM, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n> >>> Indeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\n> >>> helpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\n> >>> speaking projects.\n> >>>\n> >>> To that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\n> >>> choose the default branch name per project. This should select the\n> >>> initial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\n> >>> the repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\n> >>> specially).\n> >>>\n> >>> This can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\n> >>> without breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n> >> I _really_ like this idea (and your reasoning). Seconded.\n> > Yes, adding a -b|--branch option would be an excellent addition to\n> > the config option.\n> >\n> >\n> Is their also an option to also add an option to `git clone` to (re)set\n> the default branch name offered by the upstream to that provided?\n>\n> Alternatively provide a `--no-checkout` option for the clone so that\n> either no actual checkout is performed, or maybe that a detached head\n> checkout is performed so that users can name their default branch\n> appropriately.\n\nGood news: git clone already has a `--no-checkout` option (with `-n`\nbeing the short option form for it).\n"},{"id":"399680","messageId":"xmqqy2oqxyp3.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"32b2d17c-71df-4c10-72d7-9696f1cb17a9@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T00:45:12Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T00:45:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna writes:\n\n>>as far as I can tell, no evidence that \"main\" offends anyone.\n>\n> I'm offended by \"main\". What now?\n\nYou make sure that the list won't reach concensus that the word is\ngood enough for everybody.\n\nEven if you fail in doing so, there still is a recourse for you.\n\nWhen you see a (future) version of Git that allows you to configure\nthe name of the default/primary branch, but does not yet switch the\nname of the default/primary branch from 'master' to 'main', you set\nthe configuration variable(s) to 'master' (or whatever word of your\nchoice) in ~/.gitconfig and move on. You won't be affected by the\nfuture switch from 'master' to 'main' by being prepared that way.\n"},{"id":"399681","messageId":"0dd6b6c2-4ea4-498d-4481-7f65988db293@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqqy2oqxyp3.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T00:50:34Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T00:50:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Then why create all this disruption by changing the default from master \nto \"main\" if you will offer a feature to set the default on creation? \nAmericans were discussing trump's tiny hands last week and will have \nmoved on to any other meaningless subject the next one. You can \nliterally never please the perpetually offended. Taking this kind of \nslacktivism and creating problems for other people is a disgusting level \nof entitlement that only americans display. You really care about \nothers? Remember there's other countries in the world.\n\n"},{"id":"399685","messageId":"CAGA3LAcZa76oSovMYS7kKt9YwbYe74YgEscQKKs5qd5_KCneNQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAeXzYokcpU8RnFdF7N5vC-geOdJSY5_Mjc-yssvbpjmgw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Don Goodman-Wilson","fromEmail":"don@goodman-wilson.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T06:34:12Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T06:35:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"don@goodman-wilson.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9819ec326d55ea4c398b8ff018dcf63b4e9603b00db9cc019c725bffc9c05d17?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"(Sorry, I meant \"many (if not most) non-native English speakers DON'T\nrealize just how explosive certain English locutions can be to\nAmerican native speakers.\")\n\nOn Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:32 AM Don Goodman-Wilson\n wrote:\n>\n> I am an American living in Europe. Let me offer an analogy. Like all\n> analogies, this one is imperfect, but I think it will serve to make my\n> point.\n>\n> As an American, I don't understand French humor. It's simply beyond\n> me. I've had it explained to me numerous times, but of course\n> explaining a joke can't impart its inherent humor. But none of this\n> should come as a surprise to anyone, as humor is a deeply cultural\n> artifact, something that can only truly be understood by those raised\n> within that culture. Even so, we can all appreciate the concept of\n> humor generally. More to the point, I certainly don't go around\n> denying that French humor exists, on the basis that I don't get it.\n>\n> In the same way, something I've learned living in Europe is that many\n> (if not most) non-native English speakers realize just how explosive\n> certain English locutions can be to American native speakers. That's\n> totally understanable as, like French humor, you have to have been\n> raised in the culture to really understand that fact. Like humor, we\n> all have a sense of what offensiveness means, and like humor, this\n> explosive content is a deeply cultural artifact, something that can\n> only truly be understood by those raised within that culture. The\n> visceral feeling of explosive content will probably always be beyond\n> grasping, just as French humor will probably never make me laugh.\n>\n> But to deny that explosive content on the basis that you don't\n> personally feel it, that you've never experienced it? To claim that it\n> is \"meaningless\", that some people are \"perpetually offended\"? That's\n> willful ignorance on your part, a bad-faith effort to engage in\n> serious intellectual conversation about what is good and right, and\n> has no place in a discussion about creating an inclusive space for all\n> developers, let alone trying to bring about a more just world.\n>\n> Don Goodman-Wilson\n>\n> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:50 AM Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n> wrote:\n> >\n> > Then why create all this disruption by changing the default from master\n> > to \"main\" if you will offer a feature to set the default on creation?\n> > Americans were discussing trump's tiny hands last week and will have\n> > moved on to any other meaningless subject the next one. You can\n> > literally never please the perpetually offended. Taking this kind of\n> > slacktivism and creating problems for other people is a disgusting level\n> > of entitlement that only americans display. You really care about\n> > others? Remember there's other countries in the world.\n> >\n"},{"id":"399686","messageId":"CAGA3LAeXzYokcpU8RnFdF7N5vC-geOdJSY5_Mjc-yssvbpjmgw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"0dd6b6c2-4ea4-498d-4481-7f65988db293@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Don Goodman-Wilson","fromEmail":"don@goodman-wilson.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T06:32:45Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T06:35:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"don@goodman-wilson.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9819ec326d55ea4c398b8ff018dcf63b4e9603b00db9cc019c725bffc9c05d17?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"I am an American living in Europe. Let me offer an analogy. Like all\nanalogies, this one is imperfect, but I think it will serve to make my\npoint.\n\nAs an American, I don't understand French humor. It's simply beyond\nme. I've had it explained to me numerous times, but of course\nexplaining a joke can't impart its inherent humor. But none of this\nshould come as a surprise to anyone, as humor is a deeply cultural\nartifact, something that can only truly be understood by those raised\nwithin that culture. Even so, we can all appreciate the concept of\nhumor generally. More to the point, I certainly don't go around\ndenying that French humor exists, on the basis that I don't get it.\n\nIn the same way, something I've learned living in Europe is that many\n(if not most) non-native English speakers realize just how explosive\ncertain English locutions can be to American native speakers. That's\ntotally understanable as, like French humor, you have to have been\nraised in the culture to really understand that fact. Like humor, we\nall have a sense of what offensiveness means, and like humor, this\nexplosive content is a deeply cultural artifact, something that can\nonly truly be understood by those raised within that culture. The\nvisceral feeling of explosive content will probably always be beyond\ngrasping, just as French humor will probably never make me laugh.\n\nBut to deny that explosive content on the basis that you don't\npersonally feel it, that you've never experienced it? To claim that it\nis \"meaningless\", that some people are \"perpetually offended\"? That's\nwillful ignorance on your part, a bad-faith effort to engage in\nserious intellectual conversation about what is good and right, and\nhas no place in a discussion about creating an inclusive space for all\ndevelopers, let alone trying to bring about a more just world.\n\nDon Goodman-Wilson\n\nOn Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:50 AM Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n wrote:\n>\n> Then why create all this disruption by changing the default from master\n> to \"main\" if you will offer a feature to set the default on creation?\n> Americans were discussing trump's tiny hands last week and will have\n> moved on to any other meaningless subject the next one. You can\n> literally never please the perpetually offended. Taking this kind of\n> slacktivism and creating problems for other people is a disgusting level\n> of entitlement that only americans display. You really care about\n> others? Remember there's other countries in the world.\n>\n"},{"id":"399694","messageId":"CAFZPMoanA6fW5YGO5Jxxd3_py=dBCqNxmU1ikUGuYopXWwofyA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAcZa76oSovMYS7kKt9YwbYe74YgEscQKKs5qd5_KCneNQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sergey Lapin","fromEmail":"slapinid@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T08:47:16Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T08:49:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"slapinid@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Americans' perpetual offendedness with everything is what leads to what was\nwritten in Fahrenheit 451. Constant obsession with offendedness and constant\nvaluing of everyone else about \"should I be offended now?\" is so much\nAmerican now it became really concerning among all this PC culture.\nWon't you stop your great self-destruction guys?\n\nOn Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 9:36 AM Don Goodman-Wilson\n wrote:\n>\n> (Sorry, I meant \"many (if not most) non-native English speakers DON'T\n> realize just how explosive certain English locutions can be to\n> American native speakers.\")\n>\n> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:32 AM Don Goodman-Wilson\n> wrote:\n> >\n> > I am an American living in Europe. Let me offer an analogy. Like all\n> > analogies, this one is imperfect, but I think it will serve to make my\n> > point.\n> >\n> > As an American, I don't understand French humor. It's simply beyond\n> > me. I've had it explained to me numerous times, but of course\n> > explaining a joke can't impart its inherent humor. But none of this\n> > should come as a surprise to anyone, as humor is a deeply cultural\n> > artifact, something that can only truly be understood by those raised\n> > within that culture. Even so, we can all appreciate the concept of\n> > humor generally. More to the point, I certainly don't go around\n> > denying that French humor exists, on the basis that I don't get it.\n> >\n> > In the same way, something I've learned living in Europe is that many\n> > (if not most) non-native English speakers realize just how explosive\n> > certain English locutions can be to American native speakers. That's\n> > totally understanable as, like French humor, you have to have been\n> > raised in the culture to really understand that fact. Like humor, we\n> > all have a sense of what offensiveness means, and like humor, this\n> > explosive content is a deeply cultural artifact, something that can\n> > only truly be understood by those raised within that culture. The\n> > visceral feeling of explosive content will probably always be beyond\n> > grasping, just as French humor will probably never make me laugh.\n> >\n> > But to deny that explosive content on the basis that you don't\n> > personally feel it, that you've never experienced it? To claim that it\n> > is \"meaningless\", that some people are \"perpetually offended\"? That's\n> > willful ignorance on your part, a bad-faith effort to engage in\n> > serious intellectual conversation about what is good and right, and\n> > has no place in a discussion about creating an inclusive space for all\n> > developers, let alone trying to bring about a more just world.\n> >\n> > Don Goodman-Wilson\n> >\n> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:50 AM Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n> > wrote:\n> > >\n> > > Then why create all this disruption by changing the default from master\n> > > to \"main\" if you will offer a feature to set the default on creation?\n> > > Americans were discussing trump's tiny hands last week and will have\n> > > moved on to any other meaningless subject the next one. You can\n> > > literally never please the perpetually offended. Taking this kind of\n> > > slacktivism and creating problems for other people is a disgusting level\n> > > of entitlement that only americans display. You really care about\n> > > others? Remember there's other countries in the world.\n> > >\n"},{"id":"399695","messageId":"CAFZPMoYeT=40grVUjWKeWeGTDsxwqhX9jg2MYFpoSF_Zp45dUg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAFZPMoanA6fW5YGO5Jxxd3_py=dBCqNxmU1ikUGuYopXWwofyA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sergey Lapin","fromEmail":"slapinid@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T08:48:18Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T08:49:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"slapinid@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"And I'm also offended by \"main\"\n\nOn Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 11:47 AM Sergey Lapin wrote:\n>\n> Americans' perpetual offendedness with everything is what leads to what was\n> written in Fahrenheit 451. Constant obsession with offendedness and constant\n> valuing of everyone else about \"should I be offended now?\" is so much\n> American now it became really concerning among all this PC culture.\n> Won't you stop your great self-destruction guys?\n>\n> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 9:36 AM Don Goodman-Wilson\n> wrote:\n> >\n> > (Sorry, I meant \"many (if not most) non-native English speakers DON'T\n> > realize just how explosive certain English locutions can be to\n> > American native speakers.\")\n> >\n> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:32 AM Don Goodman-Wilson\n> > wrote:\n> > >\n> > > I am an American living in Europe. Let me offer an analogy. Like all\n> > > analogies, this one is imperfect, but I think it will serve to make my\n> > > point.\n> > >\n> > > As an American, I don't understand French humor. It's simply beyond\n> > > me. I've had it explained to me numerous times, but of course\n> > > explaining a joke can't impart its inherent humor. But none of this\n> > > should come as a surprise to anyone, as humor is a deeply cultural\n> > > artifact, something that can only truly be understood by those raised\n> > > within that culture. Even so, we can all appreciate the concept of\n> > > humor generally. More to the point, I certainly don't go around\n> > > denying that French humor exists, on the basis that I don't get it.\n> > >\n> > > In the same way, something I've learned living in Europe is that many\n> > > (if not most) non-native English speakers realize just how explosive\n> > > certain English locutions can be to American native speakers. That's\n> > > totally understanable as, like French humor, you have to have been\n> > > raised in the culture to really understand that fact. Like humor, we\n> > > all have a sense of what offensiveness means, and like humor, this\n> > > explosive content is a deeply cultural artifact, something that can\n> > > only truly be understood by those raised within that culture. The\n> > > visceral feeling of explosive content will probably always be beyond\n> > > grasping, just as French humor will probably never make me laugh.\n> > >\n> > > But to deny that explosive content on the basis that you don't\n> > > personally feel it, that you've never experienced it? To claim that it\n> > > is \"meaningless\", that some people are \"perpetually offended\"? That's\n> > > willful ignorance on your part, a bad-faith effort to engage in\n> > > serious intellectual conversation about what is good and right, and\n> > > has no place in a discussion about creating an inclusive space for all\n> > > developers, let alone trying to bring about a more just world.\n> > >\n> > > Don Goodman-Wilson\n> > >\n> > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:50 AM Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n> > > wrote:\n> > > >\n> > > > Then why create all this disruption by changing the default from master\n> > > > to \"main\" if you will offer a feature to set the default on creation?\n> > > > Americans were discussing trump's tiny hands last week and will have\n> > > > moved on to any other meaningless subject the next one. You can\n> > > > literally never please the perpetually offended. Taking this kind of\n> > > > slacktivism and creating problems for other people is a disgusting level\n> > > > of entitlement that only americans display. You really care about\n> > > > others? Remember there's other countries in the world.\n> > > >\n"},{"id":"399699","messageId":"9d3d3888-55e5-61f0-1541-9854a70fb233@iee.email","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CABPp-BHF7KDLw7_VtSokpOuOr_tX2DTNu31B58P83R3HK=YVvA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Philip Oakley","fromEmail":"philipoakley@iee.email","sentAt":"2020-06-14T10:54:17Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T10:54:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philipoakley@iee.email","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/914343?v=4"},"body":"On 14/06/2020 01:41, Elijah Newren wrote:\n> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:23 AM Philip Oakley wrote:\n>> On 11/06/2020 13:52, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n>>> On 6/11/2020 7:59 AM, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n>>>>> Indeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\n>>>>> helpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\n>>>>> speaking projects.\n>>>>>\n>>>>> To that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\n>>>>> choose the default branch name per project. This should select the\n>>>>> initial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\n>>>>> the repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\n>>>>> specially).\n>>>>>\n>>>>> This can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\n>>>>> without breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n>>>> I _really_ like this idea (and your reasoning). Seconded.\n>>> Yes, adding a -b|--branch option would be an excellent addition to\n>>> the config option.\n>>>\n>>>\n>> Is their also an option to also add an option to `git clone` to (re)set\n>> the default branch name offered by the upstream to that provided?\n>>\n>> Alternatively provide a `--no-checkout` option for the clone so that\n>> either no actual checkout is performed, or maybe that a detached head\n>> checkout is performed so that users can name their default branch\n>> appropriately.\n> Good news: git clone already has a `--no-checkout` option (with `-n`\n> being the short option form for it).\nThanks. The man description \"and creates and checks out an initial\nbranch that is forked from the cloned repository’s currently active\nbranch\" had me initially fooled.\n\nI did see the option after posting, but IIUC there is still the default\nbranch name linkage that could be resolved.\n\nPhilip\n"},{"id":"399702","messageId":"0ff090f4-ef18-06f7-8bf3-e404ffb66ad9@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAcZa76oSovMYS7kKt9YwbYe74YgEscQKKs5qd5_KCneNQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T12:07:22Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T12:08:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Ok, first of all, \"making a better world\". Get off your high horse, ok? \nThis is a version control system, an engineering tool. This change is \n100% meaningless and will bring literally zero impact to the world \nexcept the disruption in people's workflow. Second, this is a GLOBAL \ncommunity. It does NOT revolve around americans is it NOT used \nexclusively used by americans. Let's assume just because a handful of \npeople (by the way, only 8% of americans are progressive \nhttps://hiddentribes.us/profiles/) feels in a certain, does that means \nwe should make changes like this because of any other people? Indians \nfind it offensive that people eat cows. Muslims find it offensive that \nhomosexuals are alive. French find it offensive when you don't take wine \nseriously. Chinese find black people offensive. Polish find communism \noffensive. Brazilians find classism offensive. Are we going around \nmaking all these slacktivist changes just because someone, somewhere \nmight remotely feel offended by it?\n\nNot only the original proposal comes from an absurd point of view and is \njust an excuse to say one is offended, but it also demonstrates just how \nentitled it is by ignoring that there are many others points of views \nand each one would be as valid to enact a plethora of other meaningless \nand pointless changes. Because let's not forget a very, very important \naspect here: MASTER IS NOT INHERENTLY RELATED TO MASTER-SLAVE RELATIONS. \nIt was pointed before but people keep willingly ignoring it: YOU JUST \nWANT TO BE OFFENDED. This is why I say \"perpetually offended\". You don't \nneed to propose software changes likes this, you need therapy.\n\n"},{"id":"399703","messageId":"d020d05f-5e36-2959-3eae-d7e21bf51178@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"9d3d3888-55e5-61f0-1541-9854a70fb233@iee.email","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T12:20:20Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T12:20:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"There's nothing to be resolved because there is no problem. If someone \nreads \"master\" and gets triggered because all they can think of is \nracism, that person needs therapy.\n\n"},{"id":"399705","messageId":"CAGA3LAfqzBsn91YTYaCT5y9XLeNLY_0B_7b1f3fdc6X4JOU81A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"d020d05f-5e36-2959-3eae-d7e21bf51178@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Don Goodman-Wilson","fromEmail":"don@goodman-wilson.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T13:58:33Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T13:58:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"don@goodman-wilson.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/9819ec326d55ea4c398b8ff018dcf63b4e9603b00db9cc019c725bffc9c05d17?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"> MASTER IS NOT INHERENTLY RELATED TO MASTER-SLAVE RELATIONS.\n\n1) There is a great deal of evidence that that claim is simply not true.\nhttps://twitter.com/tobie/status/1270290278029631489\nhttps://twitter.com/jpaulreed/status/1272064807345115137\n\n2) It's beside the point. Many problematic words and phrases have\nperfectly benign origins, but take on new meanings in new contexts.\n\nI personally reject the kind of moral relativism that is being\nespoused here. In fact, I believe that there is such a thing as\njustice, and that we each have a responsibility to seek it out and\ncreate it in every corner of our activities, big and small. You can\nabdicate that responsibility, I can't force anyone to do otherwise nor\nwould I want to. But history judges harshly those who would throw\nothers aside. Of course there are more people in the world than just\nAmericans. But there are also Americans, and in particular Black\nAmericans. Precisely because git is the tool of choice for open source\nand so much other development work, I believe we have a responsibility\nto build a tool that reflects the values of _all_ that we want to\nwelcome into these communities. If you would rather exclude Black\nAmericans or others descended from generations of colonial slavery,\nthat's your choice, but you need to own the fact that it is an\ninherently racist choice.\n\nDon Goodman-Wilson\n\nOn Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:20 PM Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n wrote:\n>\n> There's nothing to be resolved because there is no problem. If someone\n> reads \"master\" and gets triggered because all they can think of is\n> racism, that person needs therapy.\n>\n"},{"id":"399706","messageId":"f36ffb6b-94ed-b8ef-6f7c-011d65785afd@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAfqzBsn91YTYaCT5y9XLeNLY_0B_7b1f3fdc6X4JOU81A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T14:05:32Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T14:05:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"But YOU can force other people to engage in YOUR values and YOUR agenda? \nWhy do you feel the need to coopt successful movements for a completely \nunrelated agenda? Free software achieved it's goal to protect people's \nsoftware freedoms. If that's not enough for you, create a new movement \nand push a different agenda with it. Fork git, change w/e you want and \nleave normal people alone. I will repeat, only 8% of americans are \nprogressive, you are a tiny, tiny minority. Just an incredibly vocal one.\n\nAlso, the reasoning that the word \"master\" excludes black americans is \nludicrous. \"Master\" can mean so many things, then you CHOOSE to be \noffended because of one of it's meanings and now it's \"INHERENTLY\" \nracist and excludes people? Do colleges also exclude them when they \noffer you a MASTERS degree? Do chess excludes them because the highest \nrank is grandMASTER?\n\nListen to yourself, you are completely lost in pure, unadulterated ideology.\n\n"},{"id":"399707","messageId":"CAOhcEPZ6Ygm5fpiYpR1VnHv8ZrvMtOtjc+DwW2QZZy47JE45yA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Thomas Adam","fromEmail":"thomas@xteddy.org","sentAt":"2020-06-14T14:59:01Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T14:59:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"thomas@xteddy.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/e7256db4738e501e5d2e84f00bb0bd99503165729573848a03330301fc2adc4a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 18:22, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n> think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n> initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n> since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n\nHi Simon,\n\nDefinitely agree, and thanks for starting this.\n\nOne question that's been rattling round my mind is how we change the\ndocumentation to suit. By that, I mean, it has become common parlance\nat the moment to say \"master\" as the canonical branch, because that's\nthe one that's been baked as the default. Now that we're making this\nconfigurable, I'm curious how we're going to change our semantics to\nmatch the \"default\" branch (which was \"master\") when talking about git\nbranches, either here on the list, or in documentation.\n\nKindly,\nThomas\n"},{"id":"399708","messageId":"7265e8cd-6166-1da6-c1b9-85d5d591bfd7@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T15:20:48Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T15:20:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"I'm just posting it here because apparently the guy posted but it wasn't \nincluded here? I don't know.\n\n\"Michael Felt aixtools@felt.demon.nl\n\nHow does the saying go...\n\nYou can please some of the people all of the time, ..., but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.\n\nI learned as a child that my choice of certain words was influenced by words used by people i trusted. Words that I clearly did not understand completely because when I (tried) to use them, with no negative intention, but saw the use of a word shocked the people who heard me.\n\nDoes that mean I was a racist, or am a racist, because I used a word that others considered racist. Yes, I was naive. But I learned words can offend, regardless of intent.\n\nAnd I feel that is what is missing here. Using a term that someone else takes offense to does not mean any offense was ever intended. But I tire of hearing that I am responsible for knowing what offends “them”. And since I am one of the unlucky, not clearly belonging to a “minority “ of some kind, I may never complain.\n\nBut I was well above 40, and learning from my own children, before I learned to deal with all the persecution i had to live through in my early years.\n\nRacism is a powerful word, and it exists everywhere. Sometimes it is intentional - and we need to address that. But do not make the mistake that it is always intentional.\n\nA git “master” or “main” - who really cares. Do not seek offence where none is intended. You only make your own life miserable.\n\nCompare that with teasing (not as horrible as racism it seems). Just remember, teasing is always intentional, the object and objective of teasing is always clear.\n\nThe intent of a word choice is not always how it is received.\n\nIf “master” offends you, I feel for you. If “main” makes you happy, I am happy for you.\n\nI am saddened that people feel that “master” in git is an expression of racism. It is not. I am saddened that people feel it must be changed because someone takes offense.\n\nI also know my opinion does not matter. The fear of the many becomes the “ring that rules them all”. \"\n\n"},{"id":"399709","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006140458200.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqqlfktbpnf.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-14T02:59:32Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T15:33:02Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Derrick Stolee writes:\n>\n> > On 6/11/2020 7:59 AM, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n> >>> Indeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\n> >>> helpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\n> >>> speaking projects.\n> >>>\n> >>> To that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\n> >>> choose the default branch name per project. This should select the\n> >>> initial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\n> >>> the repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\n> >>> specially).\n> >>>\n> >>> This can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\n> >>> without breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n> >>\n> >> I _really_ like this idea (and your reasoning). Seconded.\n> >\n> > Yes, adding a -b|--branch option would be an excellent addition to\n> > the config option.\n>\n> In the ideal world, users should be able to just set\n> init.defaultBranchName in ~/.gitconfig once and forget about it.\n> But it is expected that some projects and their tools may heavily\n> depend on the assumption that the primary branch is called 'master'.\n> Giving a command line override like \"init -b\" (and do not forget to\n> do the same for \"clone\" as necessary) is a good escape hatch for\n> members of such projects.\n\nI agree, and I incorporated this already in the latest version I pushed to\nhttps://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/656.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"399710","messageId":"0795A4A3-4D5B-4AAF-B032-499700DFFFA5@felt.demon.nl","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOhcEPZ6Ygm5fpiYpR1VnHv8ZrvMtOtjc+DwW2QZZy47JE45yA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Michael Felt (aixtools)","fromEmail":"aixtools@felt.demon.nl","sentAt":"2020-06-14T15:13:28Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T15:35:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"aixtools@felt.demon.nl","avatar":null},"body":"Btw. The default branch, if it must have a new default label - how about calling it “default”?\n\nSent from my iPhone\n\n> On 14 Jun 2020, at 16:59, Thomas Adam wrote:\n> \n> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 18:22, Simon Pieters wrote:\n>> To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n>> think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n>> initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n>> since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n> \n> Hi Simon,\n> \n> Definitely agree, and thanks for starting this.\n> \n> One question that's been rattling round my mind is how we change the\n> documentation to suit. By that, I mean, it has become common parlance\n> at the moment to say \"master\" as the canonical branch, because that's\n> the one that's been baked as the default. Now that we're making this\n> configurable, I'm curious how we're going to change our semantics to\n> match the \"default\" branch (which was \"master\") when talking about git\n> branches, either here on the list, or in documentation.\n> \n> Kindly,\n> Thomas\n\n"},{"id":"399712","messageId":"431DBCD7-FFFE-4AD1-8BC9-0416F1F5668E@jorgechamorro.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"0795A4A3-4D5B-4AAF-B032-499700DFFFA5@felt.demon.nl","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"George Of The Jungle","fromEmail":"jorge@jorgechamorro.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T15:51:53Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T15:52:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jorge@jorgechamorro.com","avatar":null},"body":"You say this “master” has anything to do with slavery? Then be more explicit and true to history, and instead of master call it white. Sorted! If not please stop this nonsense thanks."},{"id":"399714","messageId":"20200614181906.u42tuny3eipvhd46@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"d020d05f-5e36-2959-3eae-d7e21bf51178@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-14T18:19:06Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T18:19:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 09:20:20AM -0300, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n> There's nothing to be resolved because there is no problem. If someone reads\n> \"master\" and gets triggered because all they can think of is racism, that\n> person needs therapy.\n\nWell, to be honest, if the software was written in German and used \nperfectly innocuous German words for \"leader/worker\" (fuhrer/arbeiter), \nI'm sure a lot more Europeans would get \"triggered,\" as you say. We are \nnot some kind of emotionless species, so historical connotations behind \nwords do matter -- so it is not a \"waste of effort\" to have these \ndiscussions.\n\nI support moving away from \"master\" for the default branch name -- and \nthat is regardless of the negative connotations behind the word. \nFrankly, the word \"master\" is not very descriptive for the default \nbranch name:\n\n- most English-as-a-second-language speakers don't know the meaning of \n \"master copy,\" so even if we stick to this interpretation of the word \n \"master\", then it's obscure and arbitrary to most new users of Git\n- having a branch named \"master\" is already not required, so any \n existing software that expects there to always be a \"master\" branch is \n already broken and wouldn't get any more broken by the move away \n towards more descriptive terminology\n- as it stands, the \"master\" branch does not have any special meaning \n anyway. It may or may not exist, and even if it exists, its contents \n can be arbitrarily stale. You almost always have to check which branch \n you want for your needs, so the implication of \"master copy\" is \n largely meaningless in many workflows anyway.\n\nGrosso modo, I see having a more descriptive branch name than \"master\" \nfor the \"default branch\" as an improvement for the project in general. \nMaking this configurable should assure full backwards compatibility to \nexisting workflows.\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399715","messageId":"b82bdf57-840d-f9c2-0e42-95a93d9336b7@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200614181906.u42tuny3eipvhd46@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T18:23:29Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T18:23:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Ok, can you show me a single instance where \"master\" was confusing or \nnot descriptive enough? Mind you, this all comes at the expense of a lot \nof friction in the LITERAL WHOLE WORLD. Bugs, stuff breaking, \nincompatibility issues, you name it. And let's not forget that people \nalready have all the tools they need to NOT have a master branch if they \ndon't want to. I think half dozen people can spare a few seconds instead \nof wasting literally everybody else's time fixing their respective \nsoftware. Also, literally no one cared until americans went hysterical \nwith the death of that guy in Minneapolis. It only shows it has never \nbeen an issue and is not an issue now. This is just 8% of americans \ntrying to virtue signal at the expense of literally everyone else.\n\n"},{"id":"399717","messageId":"20200614190400.bk22inkkz2w6f2sg@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"b82bdf57-840d-f9c2-0e42-95a93d9336b7@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-14T19:04:00Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T19:04:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 03:23:29PM -0300, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n> Ok, can you show me a single instance where \"master\" was confusing or not\n> descriptive enough? \n\nI just did. \"Master\" is not descriptive enough because it implies that a \nbranch with this name carries some special status over all other \nbranches, whereas in reality it doesn't. It can contain junk or be \nmissing entirely. Therefore, having \"master\" as the default name is \nmisleading.\n\n> Mind you, this all comes at the expense of a lot of\n> friction in the LITERAL WHOLE WORLD. Bugs, stuff breaking, incompatibility\n> issues, you name it. And let's not forget that people already have all the\n> tools they need to NOT have a master branch if they don't want to. \n\nWell, then nothing really changes then, does it? I don't see why you're \nso upset over a change that, as you say, will literally impact nothing.\n\n> I think\n> half dozen people can spare a few seconds instead of wasting literally\n> everybody else's time fixing their respective software.\n\nNobody should have to fix anything. If you already have an existing \nrepository, then literally nothing changes for you. If you create a new \nrepository and you don't like the new default branch name, it will take \nyou no effort to change it to whatever naming convention you prefer. We \nare giving the community more choice instead of dictating the default.\n\n> Also, literally no\n> one cared until americans went hysterical with the death of that guy in\n> Minneapolis.\n\nFalse. Efforts to remove the usage of \"master\" traces back over half a \ndecade, with many projects having done so many years back (Python, for \nexample).\n\n(I am deliberately ignoring your inciteful tone, but I would greatly \nappreciate if you don't use it again. I have all but run out of cringe.)\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399718","messageId":"20200614190842.GC6531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"fcad8e8f-e853-d754-e3f7-644a5c717f84@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"brian m. carlson","fromEmail":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","sentAt":"2020-06-14T19:08:42Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T19:08:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sandals@crustytoothpaste.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/497054?v=4"},"body":"On 2020-06-14 at 00:05:33, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n> No one here has to explain why something not racist is racist. The problem\n> are the perpetually offended that see racism in literally everywhere.\n> Specially when there's virtue signaling points in the table.\n\nI want to take a second to respond to this because I think there's\nsomething this discussion may be missing that I want to make explicit.\n\nWhen we use language, that language has a context. Part of that is\nsituational and part of it is based on how the receiver perceives it.\nVery little of it actually comes from what the actual intent of the\nsender is, because we can't be 100% certain of the sender's actual\nintent without explicitly asking them (and not always even then). Even\nif we can, that doesn't usually change the perception of the receiver,\nso it doesn't change the message that was received. And it's important\nto note that the message that was sent and the one that was received can\nbe very different.\n\nThere is nothing we can do to avoid this context because it's inherent\nin language and in the enormity of human experience. We can only\ncontrol what context we deliver to others by being aware of how other\npeople perceive our words.\n\nI'd like to illustrate this with an example from my own experience. In\nBritain, the word \"faggot\" refers to a type of meatball which many\npeople enjoy. In many English-speaking countries, it's also a slur for\na gay, bisexual, or queer man. Even if, when I hear that word in a\nculinary context, I can objectively tell myself that the word is meant\nwith neutral intentions, it still brings to mind the fact that I and\nmany of my friends have been called that and with that, my experiences\nof discrimination and harassment. One could say that I'm just easily\noffended, but whether I want to be reminded of those experiences or not,\nI am. My mind just goes there. The context here has nothing to do with\nthe sender, who probably meant well, but the message I received in, for\nexample, reading a restaurant menu, was a negative one.\n\nA reasonable person who wants to communicate well will be aware of this\ncontext and will choose to use a different phrase if they don't want to\ncommunicate that negative context. For example, the restaurateur may\nchoose to use the phrase \"savory ducks\" on their menu instead. If they\nchoose not to, then we may draw conclusions about their intent when they\nuse the language they use.\n\nSimilarly, when we use the words \"master\" or \"slave\", even in contexts\nwhere they have different meanings, we send context along with that use.\nBlack people, although able to objectively distinguish the two contexts,\nmay receive a reminder that they or people like them have been subject\nto bondage, inequality, oppression, or discrimination. If that is not\nthe context we wish to send to them, then we should consider using\ndifferent language. Nothing prevents us from using those words except\nfor our desire to communicate or not communicate a certain context.\n\nAnd while I admit that in this discussion one may say that one word is\nan obvious slur and one is not, that doesn't mean that the context the\nreceiver receives is necessarily that different. It may vary in its\nintensity, but the underlying negative context may still be there.\n\nI do want to underscore that free software is not exempt from this\nphenomenon because we use language, and all communication with words is\nsubject to these same limitations and to the human experience.\n\nThe proposed patch series makes the branch name configurable, so you may\nchoose to use a default branch name which suits you. It sounds like you\nmay choose to stay with \"master\", and you are welcome to make that\ndecision. However, as with all language, that comes with context, and\nothers will receive and interpret that context and draw their own\nconclusions about your intentions.\n\nOn a final, slightly different note, I also want to remind folks that\nare here that we have a code of conduct, which encourages us to use\nwelcoming and inclusive language and be respectful of differing\nviewpoints and experiences, and to refrain from insulting or derogatory\ncomments. I know that this isn't always easy, but I encourage community\nmembers to consider their comments carefully with that in mind,\nespecially when feelings are as strong as they are here. If you want to\ntake some time to remind yourself of what it says, it's available as\nCODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in the root of the repository.\n-- \nbrian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\nOpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n"},{"id":"399719","messageId":"18018f12-1376-9b17-e1b4-a2e5c59e711a@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200614190400.bk22inkkz2w6f2sg@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T19:08:53Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T19:09:02Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":" >I just did. \"Master\" is not descriptive enough because it implies that \na branch with this name carries some special status over all other \nbranches, whereas in reality it doesn't.\n\nNo, you presented a contrived explanation. I wanted to see a real word \ncase where someone had issues understanding it.\n\n\n >Well, then nothing really changes then, does it?\n\nDid you read what I said? I said it would be chaotic for everyone to \ndeal with this change. It won't change anything for the people who WANT \nthe change. They are just forcing everyone else to use what they want.\n\n\n >Nobody should have to fix anything. If you already have an existing \nrepository, then literally nothing changes for you.\n\nExcept git flow. And any software that deals with new git repositories \nbeing created. The world doesn't revolve around you.\n\n\n >False. Efforts to remove the usage of \"master\" traces back over half a \ndecade\n\nThere will always be people that adopt fringe ideologies. In the 1960 \nthere were feminists that accused every single straight woman of being a \ngender traitor, for example. Yes, I said \"literally no one\", and that \nwas hyperbole. I'm sorry if that went over your head so easily.\n\n"},{"id":"399720","messageId":"20200614191655.qoug6lnxi332g5jk@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"18018f12-1376-9b17-e1b4-a2e5c59e711a@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-14T19:16:55Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T19:17:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 04:08:53PM -0300, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n> >Well, then nothing really changes then, does it?\n> \n> Did you read what I said? I said it would be chaotic for everyone to deal\n> with this change. It won't change anything for the people who WANT the\n> change. They are just forcing everyone else to use what they want.\n\nNo, you \"presented a contrived example,\" to use your own words. If you \nshow me a \"real word case\" of how it would be \"chaotic for everyone,\" \nthen we can have a reasonable conversation.\n\n> >False. Efforts to remove the usage of \"master\" traces back over half \n> >a\n> decade\n> \n> There will always be people that adopt fringe ideologies. In the 1960 there\n> were feminists that accused every single straight woman of being a gender\n> traitor, for example. Yes, I said \"literally no one\", and that was\n> hyperbole. I'm sorry if that went over your head so easily.\n\nOh look, I'm all out of cringe now. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to \nend it here.\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399721","messageId":"f43e06be-f744-fcf2-95f3-848660a33c3d@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200614190842.GC6531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T19:17:08Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T19:17:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"So tell me, how many people have to be offended for a change to be made? \nBecause obviously you will never find a word that doesn't offend anyone. \nSo where is the compromise? I know that the VAST MAJORITY of people \nwanting this change here are white, including the OP. I am POSITIVE \ntheir motivation is nothing beyond virtue signaling.\n\n\nAnd on a second note, this is why COC are harmful. They are just a way \nto justify injecting agendas and coopting projects. There shouldn't be a \nmandate of \"inclusive language\" to begin with.\n\n"},{"id":"399722","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006140500370.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOhcEPZ6Ygm5fpiYpR1VnHv8ZrvMtOtjc+DwW2QZZy47JE45yA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-14T08:04:08Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T20:37:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Thomas,\n\nOn Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Thomas Adam wrote:\n\n> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 18:22, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> > To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n> > think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n> > initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n> > since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n>\n> Hi Simon,\n>\n> Definitely agree, and thanks for starting this.\n>\n> One question that's been rattling round my mind is how we change the\n> documentation to suit. By that, I mean, it has become common parlance\n> at the moment to say \"master\" as the canonical branch, because that's\n> the one that's been baked as the default. Now that we're making this\n> configurable, I'm curious how we're going to change our semantics to\n> match the \"default\" branch (which was \"master\") when talking about git\n> branches, either here on the list, or in documentation.\n\nThis has been on my mind, too. It is a big reason why I keep mullin over\nthe naming, like, a lot.\n\nIn my mind, it will be helpful for people updating documentation out there\nto use terminology that was chosen with care. My current thinking is that\n\"main branch\" is the best description of what the construct is about, and\n\"the default name of the main branch\" is what we want to change.\n\nCiao,\nJohannes\n"},{"id":"399723","messageId":"13780dc3-3cca-4072-a659-316d2824b65b@iee.email","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"b82bdf57-840d-f9c2-0e42-95a93d9336b7@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Philip Oakley","fromEmail":"philipoakley@iee.email","sentAt":"2020-06-14T20:41:30Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T20:41:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philipoakley@iee.email","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/914343?v=4"},"body":"On 14/06/2020 19:23, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n> Ok, can you show me a single instance where \"master\" was confusing or\n> not descriptive enough?\nCurrently Git, and Git for Windows, both have an equal but different\n\"master\" branch with the same project root. Hopefully we won't have the\nsame issue when the new default emerges [1].\n\nMoving away for a centralised name in a distributed versioning system\nwill offer the benefits of making the distinction between different\nforks of the same project.\n\nAt the same time the concept of a \"master copy\" is itself an oxymoron.\nComputer storage provides perfect reproduction at the bits and byte\nlevel, with strong verification through the hash values. My copy of hash\nX is identical to any other, and checkable via fsck. So we ought to be\navoiding confusing terminology.\n\nPhilip\n\n[1] Maybe the default can be called be anonymised to \"ref0\"\n\n"},{"id":"399724","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006141004420.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"0795A4A3-4D5B-4AAF-B032-499700DFFFA5@felt.demon.nl","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-14T08:27:50Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T21:01:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Michael,\n\nOn Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Michael Felt (aixtools) wrote:\n\n> Btw. The default branch, if it must have a new default label - how about\n> calling it “default”?\n\nThis has been considered. In fact, I originally worked on the patches\nunder the assumption that \"default\" would make for a good term here.\nHowever, there are a couple of arguments against it that I found\nconvincing:\n\n- There are actually two concepts at play here: the actual main branch in\n a concrete repository, and the default name we use for that branch when\n initializing a new repository. In this mail thread, we are talking about\n the latter. It does sound needlessly confusing when you spell out \"the\n default name of the default branch\", which at least to me is a good\n indicator that there must be a better term to choose.\n\n- While it is true that we are talking about the branch that is checked out\n during a `git clone` by default, it is definitely not the default branch\n name for your development in many flows: Typically when starting some\n new work, your default is _not_ to work on the main branch, but to\n branch off new topic branch.\n\n- Imagine you are in serious financial trouble and have to see the word\n \"default\" every day. It might not seem like a very convincing argument to\n those among us who are far away from such financial troubles, although\n for the less fortunate, we would create yet another source of distress.\n\nMy current working hypothesis is that `main` would make for the best term\nto use. Let me offer a couple arguments why that is.\n\n- It seems to describe best what this branch is about. It's not anybody's\n default to develop on this branch; Instead, it is where the main part of\n the work eventually lands (just like in the \"main branch\" of a company).\n\n- The name \"main\" is short and sweet.\n\n- It might sound silly, but muscle memory is a thing. And ma will still\n work with main. I bring this up because I would not have expected this to\n matter in practice, but my personal experience of the last few days\n contradicts that expectation.\n\n- Looking at my Twitter feed, I see a trend toward using \"main\".\n\nCiao,\nJohannes\n"},{"id":"399725","messageId":"xmqqmu55xsqd.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200614181906.u42tuny3eipvhd46@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T21:06:18Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T21:06:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Konstantin Ryabitsev writes:\n\n> - having a branch named \"master\" is already not required, so any \n> existing software that expects there to always be a \"master\" branch is \n> already broken and wouldn't get any more broken by the move away \n> towards more descriptive terminology\n\nThe above is mostly true but not entirely, I have to remind you.\n\nThere certainly is the concept of the primary branch in each\nrepository. With the current version of Git, it is hardcoded to be\nthe 'master' branch, and we are going to make it configurable with a\nconfiguration variable [*1*]. There are a few examples that the\nprimary branch is treated specially:\n\n - When merging into the primary branch, the auto-generated merge\n message is different from a merge into any other branches. This\n was because most of the merges, especially in early days of Git,\n were into the primary branch (there weren't many cross-branch\n merges made) and we did not want to see repeated \"Merge X into\n 'master'\", \"Merge Y into 'master'\", etc.---we just say \"Merge X\",\n \"Merge Y\", etc. when merging into the primary branch.\n\n - \"gitk\" gives preferencial treatment to 'master' when there are\n too many references it has to choose which ones to make visible.\n\n - \"git fast-export --anonymize\" redacts the name of all the\n branches, but the name of the 'master' branch is left intact in\n its anonymized output (which is done in order to make the primary\n line of work identifiable even in the redacted output stream).\n\nThere may be others. Software that assumes that 'master' is special\nis *not* broken as you stated (we will break them when we allow\nchanging the default---that is the cost those of us who are working\non the transition plan thought worth paying). The concept of \"there\nis one thing that is special among others\" can serve useful purpose.\n\nIt of course opens a different can of worms ;-) Even though we can\nplease master-slave-haters by moving away from the particular word\n'master', those who cannot stand the very idea of one thing being\nspecial among others will not be satisfied (and we shouldn't even\ntry to please them, IMO).\n\n\n\n[Footnote]\n\n*1* There is a related but separate concept of the \"default name\"\nfor the primary branch in newly created repositories, which also is\nhardcoded to be 'master'. We are going to make it configurable,\ntoo. This controls the name used by \"git init\" (possibly we will\nalso add a command line override \"git init -b name\" to countermand\nthe configured default) and \"git clone\" (which tries to use the\nname of the branch pointed at by HEAD of the other side but has to\nfall back to something when it cannot figure it out).\n"},{"id":"399726","messageId":"20200614211500.GA22505@dcvr","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqqmu55xsqd.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Eric Wong","fromEmail":"normalperson@yhbt.net","sentAt":"2020-06-14T21:15:00Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T21:15:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"e@80x24.org","avatar":null},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> It of course opens a different can of worms ;-) Even though we can\n> please master-slave-haters by moving away from the particular word\n> 'master', those who cannot stand the very idea of one thing being\n> special among others will not be satisfied (and we shouldn't even\n> try to please them, IMO).\n\nAs somebody who does not like the idea of things being special,\nI'm considering renaming \"master\" of the few projects I maintain\nto \"unofficial\". It fits my anti-centralization and\nanti-authoritarian mind, at least :>\n"},{"id":"399727","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006141035480.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200614190842.GC6531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2020-06-14T08:49:54Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T21:23:20Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi brian,\n\nOn Sun, 14 Jun 2020, brian m. carlson wrote:\n\n> On 2020-06-14 at 00:05:33, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n> > No one here has to explain why something not racist is racist. The\n> > problem are the perpetually offended that see racism in literally\n> > everywhere. Specially when there's virtue signaling points in the\n> > table.\n>\n> I want to take a second to respond to this because I think there's\n> something this discussion may be missing that I want to make explicit.\n>\n> When we use language, that language has a context. Part of that is\n> situational and part of it is based on how the receiver perceives it.\n> Very little of it actually comes from what the actual intent of the\n> sender is, because we can't be 100% certain of the sender's actual\n> intent without explicitly asking them (and not always even then). Even\n> if we can, that doesn't usually change the perception of the receiver,\n> so it doesn't change the message that was received. And it's important\n> to note that the message that was sent and the one that was received can\n> be very different.\n>\n> There is nothing we can do to avoid this context because it's inherent\n> in language and in the enormity of human experience. We can only\n> control what context we deliver to others by being aware of how other\n> people perceive our words.\n>\n> I'd like to illustrate this with an example from my own experience. In\n> Britain, the word \"faggot\" refers to a type of meatball which many\n> people enjoy. In many English-speaking countries, it's also a slur for\n> a gay, bisexual, or queer man. Even if, when I hear that word in a\n> culinary context, I can objectively tell myself that the word is meant\n> with neutral intentions, it still brings to mind the fact that I and\n> many of my friends have been called that and with that, my experiences\n> of discrimination and harassment. One could say that I'm just easily\n> offended, but whether I want to be reminded of those experiences or not,\n> I am. My mind just goes there. The context here has nothing to do with\n> the sender, who probably meant well, but the message I received in, for\n> example, reading a restaurant menu, was a negative one.\n>\n> A reasonable person who wants to communicate well will be aware of this\n> context and will choose to use a different phrase if they don't want to\n> communicate that negative context. For example, the restaurateur may\n> choose to use the phrase \"savory ducks\" on their menu instead. If they\n> choose not to, then we may draw conclusions about their intent when they\n> use the language they use.\n>\n> Similarly, when we use the words \"master\" or \"slave\", even in contexts\n> where they have different meanings, we send context along with that use.\n> Black people, although able to objectively distinguish the two contexts,\n> may receive a reminder that they or people like them have been subject\n> to bondage, inequality, oppression, or discrimination. If that is not\n> the context we wish to send to them, then we should consider using\n> different language. Nothing prevents us from using those words except\n> for our desire to communicate or not communicate a certain context.\n>\n> And while I admit that in this discussion one may say that one word is\n> an obvious slur and one is not, that doesn't mean that the context the\n> receiver receives is necessarily that different. It may vary in its\n> intensity, but the underlying negative context may still be there.\n\nThank you for sharing your perspective with us; As it contains very\npersonal parts, I am particularly grateful that you chose to write it\nout in public.\n\nAnd also: I cannot agree more with you.\n\nUltimately, it is the empathy that matters. If a certain term does not\noffend me, but is hurting other people, then changing that term is not\nabout me. My involvement in this comes from my desire to offer my support.\n\n> I do want to underscore that free software is not exempt from this\n> phenomenon because we use language, and all communication with words is\n> subject to these same limitations and to the human experience.\n>\n> The proposed patch series makes the branch name configurable, so you may\n> choose to use a default branch name which suits you. It sounds like you\n> may choose to stay with \"master\", and you are welcome to make that\n> decision. However, as with all language, that comes with context, and\n> others will receive and interpret that context and draw their own\n> conclusions about your intentions.\n\nI feel the exact same.\n\nWhen I originally read Simon's initial mail, and one of the responses,\nI felt that the analogy to the music industry made a lot of sense. And\nthat the amount of work to change a default that has been with us for\nfifteen years was just too much. I guess I am not very alone in this.\n\nIn the meantime, I had many private conversations that clarified the big\npicture for me. I cannot in good conscience continue to use the current\ndefault main branch name, and am actively working toward changing it in\nall of my repositories.\n\n> On a final, slightly different note, I also want to remind folks that\n> are here that we have a code of conduct, which encourages us to use\n> welcoming and inclusive language and be respectful of differing\n> viewpoints and experiences, and to refrain from insulting or derogatory\n> comments. I know that this isn't always easy, but I encourage community\n> members to consider their comments carefully with that in mind,\n> especially when feelings are as strong as they are here. If you want to\n> take some time to remind yourself of what it says, it's available as\n> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in the root of the repository.\n\nI am glad that you brought this up. There has been overwhelming support\nfor this code of conduct by the active contributors to this project. It is\nultimately benefitting the project that we chose to make that code\nexplicit.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"399733","messageId":"xmqq5zbtxr6n.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200614211500.GA22505@dcvr","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-14T21:39:44Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-14T21:39:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Eric Wong writes:\n\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> It of course opens a different can of worms ;-) Even though we can\n>> please master-slave-haters by moving away from the particular word\n>> 'master', those who cannot stand the very idea of one thing being\n>> special among others will not be satisfied (and we shouldn't even\n>> try to please them, IMO).\n>\n> As somebody who does not like the idea of things being special,\n> I'm considering renaming \"master\" of the few projects I maintain\n> to \"unofficial\". It fits my anti-centralization and\n> anti-authoritarian mind, at least :>\n\nWe probably can teach \"fmt-merge-msg\" (which is what helps \"git\nmerge\" to special case the message for merges into the primary\nbranch) and \"fast-export --anonymize\" to honor some special value\nfor the configuration variable (core.primaryBranchName???) so that\nthey treat that NO branch is primary/special. \n\nPerhaps an empty string would serve the purpose.\n"},{"id":"399735","messageId":"a34e4244-835e-976a-8fb4-7fc766d100bd@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T00:02:50Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T00:02:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Someone sent me these points for me to use in this discussion. But to be \nfair, I'm kind of done so I will just paste what he sent me directly:\n\nDon Goodman-Wilson said:\n\n > My feelings generally are: if you have to explain why it isn’t\n > racist, then there’s probably a better alternative.\n\nNow this is already problematic as there is the idea of reversing the\nburden of proof: he shouldn't point out that you have to explain why\nit isn't racist, instead he should explain and prove himself that it's\nracist and offensive, since he's the one making that claim and asking\nfor change in the first place.\n\nAll the sources I've seen linked in the thread are either Wikipedia,\nthat anyone can edit, or Twitter, where anyone can post anything, or\nunspecified and unverifiable anecdotal evidence of the type \"I've seen\npeople getting offended by it.\" This is not okay.\n\nPerhaps the best argument you could make is that if and before changing\nthe name \"master\", there needs to be measurable proof of how many and\nhow much people are actually offended by the use of \"master\", and an\nassessment of how many people would be offended by other proposed terms\nor by the new chosen name, and a measurable assessment that changing the\nname would actually reduce the amount of offended people, and have a\npositive impact worth the effort.\n\nIn software development, people often say that if you can't measure that\nyour change in the code actually makes a difference and has an impact\ngoing in the right direction, then you shouldn't bother writing that\ncode to begin with.\n\n"},{"id":"399736","messageId":"42EBA147-1034-4CA2-8A85-AAF023FE3781@jramsay.com.au","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006091126540.482@ZVAVAG-DN14RQO.ybpnyqbznva","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"James Ramsay","fromEmail":"james@jramsay.com.au","sentAt":"2020-06-15T00:34:29Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T00:34:38Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"james@jramsay.com.au","avatar":null},"body":"> As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Don (Cc:ed) and I started \n> working\n> on this, and I just submitted it:\n> https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.656.git.1591823971.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/\n> That patch series adds a config variable allowing to override the \n> default\n> name of the default branch.\n\nThanks Johannes and Don for your work on the patch! And Billy for \nsharing your investigations and thoughts on naming.\n\n> Billy then shared this information with James Ramsay of GitLab to\n> discuss how GitHub and GitLab can coordinate on changing the default\n> branch name in new repositories. Here is the GitLab ticket to track\n> their progress: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/220906\n\nYes, we are investigating the changes needed to support changing the \ndefault branch name of new projects created in GitLab.\n\n> Tentatively, I would like to propose having this meeting in the coming\n> week, via Zoom, just like we did the Virtual Contributor Summit last\n> September.\n>\n> Could I ask all interested parties to reply to this email?\n\nGreat idea - thanks Emily! Please include me in the invitation.\n"},{"id":"399737","messageId":"20200615021659.GA67624@syl.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200614190842.GC6531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Taylor Blau","fromEmail":"me@ttaylorr.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T02:16:59Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T02:17:06Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"me@ttaylorr.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/301000140?v=4"},"body":"Hi brian,\n\nOn Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 07:08:42PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:\n> On 2020-06-14 at 00:05:33, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n> > No one here has to explain why something not racist is racist. The problem\n> > are the perpetually offended that see racism in literally everywhere.\n> > Specially when there's virtue signaling points in the table.\n>\n> I want to take a second to respond to this because I think there's\n> something this discussion may be missing that I want to make explicit.\n\nThank you for this thoughtful and personal response. I appreciate you\nsharing your perspective, and I think that it is helpful, patient, and\npowerful.\n\n> When we use language, that language has a context. Part of that is\n> situational and part of it is based on how the receiver perceives it.\n> Very little of it actually comes from what the actual intent of the\n> sender is, because we can't be 100% certain of the sender's actual\n> intent without explicitly asking them (and not always even then). Even\n> if we can, that doesn't usually change the perception of the receiver,\n> so it doesn't change the message that was received. And it's important\n> to note that the message that was sent and the one that was received can\n> be very different.\n>\n> There is nothing we can do to avoid this context because it's inherent\n> in language and in the enormity of human experience. We can only\n> control what context we deliver to others by being aware of how other\n> people perceive our words.\n>\n> I'd like to illustrate this with an example from my own experience. In\n> Britain, the word \"faggot\" refers to a type of meatball which many\n> people enjoy. In many English-speaking countries, it's also a slur for\n> a gay, bisexual, or queer man. Even if, when I hear that word in a\n> culinary context, I can objectively tell myself that the word is meant\n> with neutral intentions, it still brings to mind the fact that I and\n> many of my friends have been called that and with that, my experiences\n> of discrimination and harassment. One could say that I'm just easily\n> offended, but whether I want to be reminded of those experiences or not,\n> I am. My mind just goes there. The context here has nothing to do with\n> the sender, who probably meant well, but the message I received in, for\n> example, reading a restaurant menu, was a negative one.\n>\n> A reasonable person who wants to communicate well will be aware of this\n> context and will choose to use a different phrase if they don't want to\n> communicate that negative context. For example, the restaurateur may\n> choose to use the phrase \"savory ducks\" on their menu instead. If they\n> choose not to, then we may draw conclusions about their intent when they\n> use the language they use.\n>\n> Similarly, when we use the words \"master\" or \"slave\", even in contexts\n> where they have different meanings, we send context along with that use.\n> Black people, although able to objectively distinguish the two contexts,\n> may receive a reminder that they or people like them have been subject\n> to bondage, inequality, oppression, or discrimination. If that is not\n> the context we wish to send to them, then we should consider using\n> different language. Nothing prevents us from using those words except\n> for our desire to communicate or not communicate a certain context.\n>\n> And while I admit that in this discussion one may say that one word is\n> an obvious slur and one is not, that doesn't mean that the context the\n> receiver receives is necessarily that different. It may vary in its\n> intensity, but the underlying negative context may still be there.\n\nI want to echo this as much as I possibly can. Language has meaning.\nSometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional; but words matter, and\nwords can hurt. Changing the name of the default branch away from\n'master' is not intended to solve all of the world's problems, nor will\nit. But, it's a small thing that we *can* do to make a difference in\n*this* project.\n\nIf we take the argument that our efforts here are being wasted because\nof other uses of 'master' in the English language, then nothing will\never get done since everybody will always be waiting on everybody else.\n\nDoing this is the right thing to do. It is *easy* for us to do, given\nour extreme privilege, and it should be done.\n\nThank you for highlighting the many ways that language and our choice of\nwords matters and affects people. I understand that this is a deeply\npersonal experience that you are sharing on the public mailing list, and\nso I thank you for your courage in using your voice to do so.\n\n> I do want to underscore that free software is not exempt from this\n> phenomenon because we use language, and all communication with words is\n> subject to these same limitations and to the human experience.\n>\n> The proposed patch series makes the branch name configurable, so you may\n> choose to use a default branch name which suits you. It sounds like you\n> may choose to stay with \"master\", and you are welcome to make that\n> decision. However, as with all language, that comes with context, and\n> others will receive and interpret that context and draw their own\n> conclusions about your intentions.\n\nI think that I am on a slightly different topic by now, but please note\nthat this change does not *break* anything. It doesn't force people to\nchange the names of their branches. Any user of Git is welcome to name\ntheir branches however they like, so long as they accept the\nconsequences of doing so.\n\n> On a final, slightly different note, I also want to remind folks that\n> are here that we have a code of conduct, which encourages us to use\n> welcoming and inclusive language and be respectful of differing\n> viewpoints and experiences, and to refrain from insulting or derogatory\n> comments. I know that this isn't always easy, but I encourage community\n> members to consider their comments carefully with that in mind,\n> especially when feelings are as strong as they are here. If you want to\n> take some time to remind yourself of what it says, it's available as\n> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md in the root of the repository.\n\nThank you. It is for exactly these situations that the CoC is useful.\nNobody--certainly not you--is trying to force any ideology on anybody.\n\nThe CoC should serve as a reminder to us all that there are people on\nthe other side of our emails, and that we should treat those people with\nrespect, and as we would ourselves wish to be treated.\n\n> --\n> brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US\n> OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204\n\nThanks,\nTaylor\n"},{"id":"399738","messageId":"8cba07dd-838e-6e36-9d7e-e619fd306838@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200615021659.GA67624@syl.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T02:54:52Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T02:55:00Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"And how many people care about this meaning? 1, 2, a dozen? You all keep \nforgetting this will disrupt the workflow of THE WHOLE WORLD. Why don't \nyou run a poll? See how popular this would be. See what would be the \nodds of a fork happening. This is NOT EASY. Also, is still pretty \ntelling the vast majority of people here are white, rich and american \nbut love to speak for the poor, oppressed and blacks.\n\n"},{"id":"399739","messageId":"CAH5451n7e39ZCM4iJ4Ry=g7QkVYwFL-a=9CTVOifp+rcvb5i_g@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAfqzBsn91YTYaCT5y9XLeNLY_0B_7b1f3fdc6X4JOU81A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Andrew Ardill","fromEmail":"andrew.ardill@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T03:52:50Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T03:53:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"andrew.ardill@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/da14cb7c091dd44dc6c63a4d3361b149acaf25226dc78eb4131a17b93d9b0993?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"[apologies to those cc'd, thought I had plaintext on but obviously not\nso resending]\n\nHey, I got linked to this thread! Been following along since the\nbeginning but only engaged on twitter so far.\n\nTo put the important stuff first: I believe the historical usage of\nthe word is mostly irrelevant for understanding how a word is used\ntoday, and more importantly when deciding if we should continue using\nit.\nFor this specific issue, I think if it's possible to have no default\nbranch name (have the user name it when creating the repository) that\nis the best option; if there has to be a default branch name then let\nit be configurable and default to whatever the community wants to\ndefault to (which to date seems to be 'main').\n\nOn the history of how 'master' came to be used as the git default\nbranch, and the history of how it has been used historically, there\nare a few things (and please note I do think this is irrelevant in the\ncontext of what the git default branch should be - this was originally\na deep dive simply because I was interested).\n\nFirst up, there are definitely usages from around the time git was\ncreated of the \"Master and Slave\" paradigm within the context of\nsource control management, for example [0].\nIt seems like CVS also used the \"Master and Slave\" terminology when\nreferencing repository management, but I haven't looked into that in\nparticular [1] (the main branch is called trunk though).\n\nThe thing is, there are also a lot of usages that use the \"Master\nCopy\" paradigm, and when it comes to BitKeeper there are a lot more of\nthis kind of usage than the \"Master and Slave\" usage. Perhaps the most\nauthoritative I have found is the BitKeeper book, which says \"shared\nmaster repository, private per user working repositories\" [13].\n\nThe GNOME mailing list thread that is used as a starting point for\nthis argument makes a lot of tenuous links, links I don't think hold\nup when looking at the full context. I'll try and address a few parts\nof this argument but again, this is just a bit of history I find\ninteresting rather than an important consideration for changing git\ntoday.\n\nEven if git borrowed 'master' from BitKeeper AND BitKeeper used it in\na \"Master and Slave\" fashion, that doesn't mean that the person\nintroducing it to git was using it in a \"Master and Slave\" fashion,\nnor that everyone else in git used it in a \"Master and Slave\" fashion.\nThe best way to find that out would be to ask people who were there\n(for when it was introduced) and people who use it today (for how it\nhas been used since then). Anecdotally, I have never seen anyone\nassociate the master branch in git with anything except a \"Master\nCopy\" (or \"Gold Master\") EXCEPT when following that GNOME link [5].\nI wasn't there at the time, so if anyone was would love to hear your input.\n\nHow likely is it that git borrowed the concept directly from\nBitKeeper, as opposed to some CVS usage or simply general usage? The\nfirst point made in the GNOME post is that 'master' was introduced\nwith a CVS helper script [2]. Here is the snippet:\n\n> src_branch = *ancestor ? ancestor : branch;\n> if (!strcmp(src_branch, \"HEAD\"))\n> src_branch = \"master\";\n\nThey then claim that this usage of master is\n\n> Probably because BitKeeper uses \"master\" for its main branch\"\n\nIt's just as likely that the 'master' usage was common in the industry\n(for example, as stated in [0], which actually lends support for the\n\"Master and Slave\" usage in the industry), but let's go with it being\ncopied from BitKeeper - what then was the usage in BitKeeper like?\n\nThe term 'master' is very common in the source and documentation of\nBitKeeper, but repositories are not explicitly named in BitKeeper so\nthese usages are either referring to the machine the repository is on,\na conceptual name in a workflow, or some non-repository related\nmeaning.\n\nFor example @jpaulreed on twitter found a usage which is the \"default\nconfig value for... what to call the repository displayed by the\nBitkeeper HTTP server\" [3]. You can see where it is used at [3.1].\n(as an aside, a lot of that thread is showing usages of 'master\nrepository' in BitKeeper, as opposed to \"Master and Slave\" usages,\nwhich I think is due to me not being clear about the point I was\ntrying to make re \"Master and Slave\" vs \"Master Copy\").\n\nThe term 'slave' is somewhat common in BitKeepers source, though most\nusages are in the Tcl/Tk gui code so not relevant to this discussion.\nThe ones that are relevant are talking about a slave machine (and the\nrepository on that machine) as per [6], and a 'slave' comment in a\ntest [6.1] (again found by @jpaulreed [4]).\n\nIn this HOWTO.ask file the terms 'master repository' and 'slave\nrepository' are used quite a bit, but always in reference to the\nrepositories sitting on the master and slave machines in the example.\nIn other sections of this document, when talking about developers\nmodifying the code, the terms 'Master' and 'WorkArea' are used\ninstead. Indeed, as far as I can tell, all other usages of 'master' to\nrefer to a repository in the docs are used in this way or are\nambiguous about the usage.\n\nBelow I summarise all usages of 'master' in BitKeeper, apologies for\nthe verbosity but I found it hard to do this on twitter, so I am\nlisting them here (after my conclusion).\n\nMy conclusion?\n\nOf all the usages of master in BitKeeper, the overwhelming majority of\nthem are of the \"Master Copy\" variant, consistent with how I and many\nother people I have seen comment understand gits usage of the term\nmaster.\n\nTo reiterate my point at the top - I believe this information is\nirrelevant when deciding what git should do now, and my preference\nwould be to have no default at all.\n\nExamples that use the word slave:\n- a repository on a slave machine (note the master-copy usage is also\nused here) [5]\n- a slave comment in t.automerge [6]\n\nExamples that are consistent with a \"Master Copy\" usage of the word\nmaster, and not a \"Master and Slave\" usage are:\n- in the airgap docs [7] there are two masters, and 'Work Spaces' to\nmodify the code in them\n- notes on binpool reference local and remote masters [8]\n- bk-Howto-bkd has example code for cloning master to '~/my-tree' [9]\n- quickstart docs has similar example to bk-Howto-bkd and additionally\ntalks about a master and a clone [10]\n- the bam-pull test talks about a master and clone [11]\n- bk-csetprune uses main as a synonym for master, and additionally\ntalks about cloning into 'src' and 'docs' repositories (splitting a\nmaster repo into two) [12]\n- the BitKeeper book, which says \"shared master repository, private\nper user working repositories\" [13]\n- trigger-master and trigger-copy repositories in t.resolve [14]\n- in t.bam-clean, a master repository and its copy and a 'clean' clone [15]\n- in t.bam2, a master and its clones [16]\n- in-bk-config-etc \"the location from which source can be cloned\" [17]\n- in t.checksum, cloning from a master to a 'client' repository [18]\n- in bk-bkd, pushing from 'myrepo' to the master [19]\n- in t.nested-attach, names used are 'project', 'copy', and 'master' [20]\n- tag-master and tag-copy in t.csetprune [21]\n- release notes for 4.x talking about multiple parents - local master\nand remote master [22]\n- in t.bam, tests referring to 'servmaster', 'someclient', and\n'servmaster.copy' [23]\n- in bkmsg.doc create a master repository for a package, then clone\ninto 'my_workarea' [24]\n\nOther repository usages that talk about a master but are not\nexplicitly \"master copy\" or repository usage:\n- bk-bkscc uses top-level as a synonym for master when talking about\nMakefiles, and also talks about Master repositories but doesn't really\ntalk about relationships between repositories at all [25]\n- event-stack propagation talks about master repositories, and appears\nto imply a master-copy usage, but it's not clear [26]\n- the 'Master repository' as listed in the webserver, no reference to\nclones/copies/slaves or anything else [27]\n- test for the webserver configvar master [28]\n- when discussing rcloning, discusses multiple 'masters' but doesn't\nreally reference non-master repos [29]\n\nGit related usages of master:\n- in bk-fast-export [30]\n- git usages in bk-fast-import [31]\n- git usages in doGitExport.sh [32]\n- in git2bk [33]\n- in t.git-exporter [34]\n- seems to be git related in fast-export.c [35]\n- in release notes for 7.3.1ce introducing bk fast-export --standalone mode [36]\n\nOther, non-repository usages:\n- as discussed above, lots of Tcl/Tk gui code\n- notes on DAEMON is a bit ambiguous, but no slave references or\nimplications [37]\n- gnu patch talking about where the 'master source' for its code lives [38]\n- crank.sh talking about a 'master template' [39]\n- in bk-patch [40], gnu/patch/patch.man [41], and gnu/patch/pch.c\n[42], references to an 'SC master' which are references to an SCSS\nmaster\n- release notes for 4.x referring to a 'master lease server'\n(synonymous with authoritative) [43]\n- in tomcrypt/DoxyFile references to \"the master .chm file\" [44]\n- 'mastering' perl regular expressions [45]\n\nRegards,\n\nAndrew Ardill\n\n[0] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Open_Sources_2_0/q9GnNrq3e5EC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA29\n[1] https://twitter.com/hadessuk/status/1271487243950206978\n[2] https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9\n[3] https://twitter.com/jpaulreed/status/1272043692837072897\n[3.1] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/bkd_http.c#L1264\n[4] https://twitter.com/jpaulreed/status/1272042287732674560\n[5] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html\n\n\"master/slave\" usages of master or slave\n[6] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223\n[6.1] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/src/t/t.automerge#L90\n\n\"master-copy\" usages of master\n[7] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/airgap/airgap.gif\n[8] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/Notes/BINPOOL.adoc\n[9] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-Howto-bkd.1#L25\n[10] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/doc/quickstart#L70\n[11] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.bam-pull\n[12] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-csetprune.1#L94\n[13] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/doc/book.ol#L14\n[14] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.resolve#L909\n[15] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.bam-clean#L31\n[16] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.bam2\n[17] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-config-etc.1#L105\n[18] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.checksum#L241\n[19] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-bkd.1#L240\n[20] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.nested-attach#L611\n[21] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.csetprune\n[22] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/RELEASE-NOTES-4.x#L917\n[23] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/5695c0d0ecd062f13542c3cb04dd872466774fbf/src/t/t.bam#L360\n[24] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/bkmsg.doc#L357\n\nambiguous usages of master\n[25] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-bkscc.hide\n[26] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/Notes/EVENT-STACK.adoc\n[27] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/bkd_http.c#L1264\n[28] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.config-defaults\n[29] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/rclone.c#L158\n\ngit related usages of master\n[30] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-fast-export.1\n[31] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-fast-import.1\n[32] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/doGitExport.sh#L17\n[33] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/contrib/git2bk.l#L35\n[34] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/t/t.git-exporter#L50\n[35] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/fast-export.c\n[36] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/5695c0d0ecd062f13542c3cb04dd872466774fbf/RELEASE-NOTES.md#bitkeeper-version-731ce-released-sep-29-2016\n\nnon-repository usages of master\n[37] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/Notes/DAEMON.adoc\n[38] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/gnu/patch/error.c\n[39] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/crank.sh#L16\n[40] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-patch.1#L207\n[41] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/gnu/patch/patch.man\n[42] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/gnu/patch/pch.c\n[43] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/RELEASE-NOTES-4.x#L980\n[44] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/src/tomcrypt/Doxyfile#L639\n[45] https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/616740d0daad99530951e46ab48e577807cbbaf4/man/man1/bk-pcre.1#L146\n\nRegards,\n\nAndrew Ardill\n\n\nOn Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 00:00, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n>\n> > MASTER IS NOT INHERENTLY RELATED TO MASTER-SLAVE RELATIONS.\n>\n> 1) There is a great deal of evidence that that claim is simply not true.\n> https://twitter.com/tobie/status/1270290278029631489\n> https://twitter.com/jpaulreed/status/1272064807345115137\n>\n> 2) It's beside the point. Many problematic words and phrases have\n> perfectly benign origins, but take on new meanings in new contexts.\n>\n> I personally reject the kind of moral relativism that is being\n> espoused here. In fact, I believe that there is such a thing as\n> justice, and that we each have a responsibility to seek it out and\n> create it in every corner of our activities, big and small. You can\n> abdicate that responsibility, I can't force anyone to do otherwise nor\n> would I want to. But history judges harshly those who would throw\n> others aside. Of course there are more people in the world than just\n> Americans. But there are also Americans, and in particular Black\n> Americans. Precisely because git is the tool of choice for open source\n> and so much other development work, I believe we have a responsibility\n> to build a tool that reflects the values of _all_ that we want to\n> welcome into these communities. If you would rather exclude Black\n> Americans or others descended from generations of colonial slavery,\n> that's your choice, but you need to own the fact that it is an\n> inherently racist choice.\n>\n> Don Goodman-Wilson\n>\n> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:20 PM Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n> wrote:\n> >\n> > There's nothing to be resolved because there is no problem. If someone\n> > reads \"master\" and gets triggered because all they can think of is\n> > racism, that person needs therapy.\n> >\n"},{"id":"399740","messageId":"20200615044533.GA24311@sigkill.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAH5451n7e39ZCM4iJ4Ry=g7QkVYwFL-a=9CTVOifp+rcvb5i_g@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"J. Paul Reed","fromEmail":"preed@sigkill.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T04:45:33Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T04:45:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"preed@sigkill.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/a6d898ae24f856b851376d22623fd35bb37134ad6df0483b84b2b135c4878237?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"\nHeya Andrew... turns out I read this list too, so... thanks for referencin'\nall my work!\n\nSome thoughts inline:\n\nOn 15 Jun 2020 at 13:52:50, Andrew Ardill arranged the bits on my disk to say:\n\n[SNIP]\n\n> Even if git borrowed 'master' from BitKeeper AND BitKeeper used it in\n> a \"Master and Slave\" fashion, that doesn't mean that the person\n> introducing it to git was using it in a \"Master and Slave\" fashion,\n\nhttps://marc.info/?l=git&m=111968031816936&w=2\n\nhttps://marc.info/?l=git&m=111634468526506&w=2\n\nOops.\n\n> It's just as likely that the 'master' usage was common in the industry\n\nDo you have any specific references to, specifically, common usage in the\nindustry, at that time?\n\n> My conclusion?\n> \n> Of all the usages of master in BitKeeper, the overwhelming majority of\n> them are of the \"Master Copy\" variant, consistent with how I and many\n> other people I have seen comment understand gits usage of the term\n> master.\n\nSee above.\n\n> To reiterate my point at the top - I believe this information is\n> irrelevant when deciding what git should do now, and my preference\n> would be to have no default at all.\n\nCool. Sounds like we mostly agree...\n\n-p\n-- \nJ. Paul Reed\nhttps://jpaulreed.com\nPGP: 0xDF8708F8\n\n"},{"id":"399741","messageId":"CAH5451nUVB33RkSM2nzJ_yiKF_zSnWGj1FzHwMetg_yVUH05Cw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200615044533.GA24311@sigkill.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Andrew Ardill","fromEmail":"andrew.ardill@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T05:19:38Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T05:20:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"andrew.ardill@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/da14cb7c091dd44dc6c63a4d3361b149acaf25226dc78eb4131a17b93d9b0993?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hi J. Paul, who would have thought! :)\n\nOn Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 14:45, J. Paul Reed wrote:\n> Heya Andrew... turns out I read this list too, so... thanks for referencin'\n> all my work!\n\nNo problem, I appreciated the effort you went to.\n\n> > Even if git borrowed 'master' from BitKeeper AND BitKeeper used it in\n> > a \"Master and Slave\" fashion, that doesn't mean that the person\n> > introducing it to git was using it in a \"Master and Slave\" fashion,\n>\n> https://marc.info/?l=git&m=111968031816936&w=2\n\nThis is an example we discussed on twitter, so I'll paraphrase/extend\non what I said there.\n\nThis is definitely a \"Master and Slave\" usage by Linus, but is not an\nexample of using \"Master and Slave\" terminology with respect to git\nbranches.\nIt is talking about mirroring kernel.org from a master to the mirror (slave).\n\nIt's evidence that Linus used \"Master and Slave\", but not (to my mind)\nevidence that the master branch in git was named master because of the\n\"Master and Slave\" meaning of master. It may have been, but this\nexample doesn't seem like evidence for that.\n\n> https://marc.info/?l=git&m=111634468526506&w=2\n\nI hadn't seen this one before, but this doesn't seem directly related\nto this issue either.\n\nLinus says that \"the public stuff [note - he is referring to\nmaster.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git] is\nthe _slave_. It has no meaning. The only important one is the one that\nthe _developer_ works on.\"\n\nHe is saying that the public master is a slave to (as in a mirror that\nfollows) his local repository. This is definitely \"Master and Slave\"\nusage (though an unusual one, as something called master is acting\nlike a slave) but again it is not referring to how branches are named.\n\nIn that email, most of his usage is talking about \"central\nrepositories\" or \"main repositories\", and \"local repositories\" which\nare referred to as workspaces; the only reference to slave is the\nbehaviour of his public repository, in that it follows his local.\n\n> Oops.\n>\n> > It's just as likely that the 'master' usage was common in the industry\n>\n> Do you have any specific references to, specifically, common usage in the\n> industry, at that time?\n\nNothing apart from those in my previous email - all of the BitKeeper\nreferences, and the book which does explicitly use the \"Master and\nSlave\" terminology -\nhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/Open_Sources_2_0/q9GnNrq3e5EC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA29\n\nI wasn't focused on what general usage of master may have been, so\ndidn't search out other examples, but the reason I think it's a\nreasonable alternative are all the usages from BitKeeper (some, such\nas the airgap example are very old, relatively) and the fact that so\nmany developers today seem to think the usage is the \"Master Copy\"\nmeaning (and assuming some level of continuity in language over the\nlast 15 years).\n\nIn any case, this is not a strongly held belief of mine, my starting\npoint was that most people (myself included) seem to assume the master\ndefault branch in git is the \"Master Copy\", and I haven't yet seen\nmuch evidence to suggest otherwise. Happy to see other evidence, and\nI'll go looking for some myself (in my obviously copious free time\nhaha!)\n\n> > My conclusion?\n> >\n> > Of all the usages of master in BitKeeper, the overwhelming majority of\n> > them are of the \"Master Copy\" variant, consistent with how I and many\n> > other people I have seen comment understand gits usage of the term\n> > master.\n>\n> See above.\n>\n> > To reiterate my point at the top - I believe this information is\n> > irrelevant when deciding what git should do now, and my preference\n> > would be to have no default at all.\n>\n> Cool. Sounds like we mostly agree...\n\nCool indeed :)\n\nRegards,\n\nAndrew Ardill\n"},{"id":"399747","messageId":"20200615100735.GV21462@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006140458200.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2020-06-15T10:07:35Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T10:07:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 04:59:32AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> > Derrick Stolee writes:\n> >\n> > > On 6/11/2020 7:59 AM, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> > >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:52 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n> > >>> Indeed, the flexibility to choose the name of the default branch can be\n> > >>> helpful for projects with specific naming, especially non-english\n> > >>> speaking projects.\n> > >>>\n> > >>> To that end I would suggest adding -b argument to git init to be able to\n> > >>> choose the default branch name per project. This should select the\n> > >>> initial branch name and also write the it as the default branch name in\n> > >>> the repo configuration (if git continues to treat the default branch\n> > >>> specially).\n> > >>>\n> > >>> This can be used in documentation to use the new name immediately\n> > >>> without breaking existing workflows that rely on the 'master' branch.\n> > >>\n> > >> I _really_ like this idea (and your reasoning). Seconded.\n> > >\n> > > Yes, adding a -b|--branch option would be an excellent addition to\n> > > the config option.\n> >\n> > In the ideal world, users should be able to just set\n> > init.defaultBranchName in ~/.gitconfig once and forget about it.\n> > But it is expected that some projects and their tools may heavily\n> > depend on the assumption that the primary branch is called 'master'.\n> > Giving a command line override like \"init -b\" (and do not forget to\n> > do the same for \"clone\" as necessary) is a good escape hatch for\n> > members of such projects.\n> \n> I agree, and I incorporated this already in the latest version I pushed to\n> https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/656.\n\nWhy should everyone use the same branch names?\n\nIt makes more sense for people to name their branches in a way that\nmakes sense in the context of their project/workflow/language.\n\nShowing the use of -b with init in tutorials and examples would\nfacilitate that.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"399785","messageId":"bee91039-34fc-d3da-a0a0-c048e410c582@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T14:39:38Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T14:39:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"It seems the developers made their mind, so I'll just leave some food \nfor tought.\n\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEU-t-ANpdY\n\n"},{"id":"399786","messageId":"4c08e1a0-db64-5d7d-493f-54c68ee75470@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T14:39:45Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T14:39:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"It seems the developers made their mind, so I'll just leave some food \nfor thought.\n\nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEU-t-ANpdY\n\n"},{"id":"399800","messageId":"20200615180744.GB135968@google.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"d020d05f-5e36-2959-3eae-d7e21bf51178@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T18:07:44Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T18:07:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n\n> There's nothing to be resolved because there is no problem. If someone reads\n> \"master\" and gets triggered because all they can think of is racism, that\n> person needs therapy.\n\nPlease stop.\n\nRegardless of your opinions, this is not acceptable conduct on the\nlist. It is perfectly possible to describe your needs as a user and\nyour opinions about best technical courses of action without insulting\npeople.\n\nIt's also not particularly effective. There's a clear consensus\nalready among active Git contributors that changing the default branch\nname is a problem worth solving, and there's active work being done in\nthat area. You are free to roll back these patches in your own local\ncopy of git, but repeatedly asserting that *you* don't value this work\nis not a particularly productive way to participate in the Git\nproject.\n\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"399801","messageId":"3cef6084-e632-c9ce-c0da-a2c250c2f512@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200615180744.GB135968@google.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T18:18:05Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T18:18:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Yes, half dozen people who are scared to be cancelled agreed with it. \nTell me what, why don't we run a poll on popular places about tech and \nsee what people think of it? It's pretty authoritarian to force the \nwhole world to be affected by a change that only very few want. There's \nbarely a dozen people in this conversation for a tool that is pretty \nmuch a global standard.\n\n"},{"id":"399802","messageId":"8f9193aa-43bf-2ad3-d067-6330385e1788@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAAwdEzDgJuoQJAZsrT0piuZPVP6nJTSB9RCbcuXO03-BYTnmOQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T19:37:30Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T19:37:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":" >But the people that contribute to the code and to an open-source \nproject are the owner of that project so they get to get the calls.\n\nIgnoring everyone else's opinions and needs and just exerting your \nauthority is the very definition of authoritarianism. Yes, they do have \nthe right. But if they ignore the users, they can just use a fork that \ndoes what they want. Have anyone considered that a breaking change in \ngit might very well result in a fork?\n\n"},{"id":"399806","messageId":"CAAwdEzBNwEVFcW5bTE-aWxnoQYamJH+DRhqRgc6abgo+bgYUzQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"8f9193aa-43bf-2ad3-d067-6330385e1788@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Alexandru Pătrănescu","fromEmail":"drealecs@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T19:50:56Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T19:51:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"drealecs@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Sérgio\nOn Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:37 PM Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n wrote:\n>\n> >But the people that contribute to the code and to an open-source\n> project are the owner of that project so they get to get the calls.\n>\n> Ignoring everyone else's opinions and needs and just exerting your\n> authority is the very definition of authoritarianism. Yes, they do have\n> the right. But if they ignore the users, they can just use a fork that\n> does what they want. Have anyone considered that a breaking change in\n> git might very well result in a fork?\nWell... fork happens sometimes when two groups of people completely\ndisagree and cannot work together.\nI really hope a vote here would be enough to settle things.\n\nSérgio, I'm actually with you on this side, just to state my opinion as well.\n\nI haven't yet heard of a person that is offended by git master branch.\nI've heard thou about persons that think that some others will get offended.\nBut most of the time, I've heard about people that think this world\ngot crazy on git master branch naming :).\n\nBut I guess you've heard that already from other participants already,\nso I apologize for repeating it.\n\nAnd I believe that both of you, Sérgio and Jonathan, were a bit rude\nto each other :)\nLet's relax and have a drink! Cheers!\n\nAlex\n"},{"id":"399818","messageId":"048501d64355$791a82b0$6b4f8810$@nexbridge.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"8f9193aa-43bf-2ad3-d067-6330385e1788@gmail.com","subject":"RE: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Randall S. Becker","fromEmail":"rsbecker@nexbridge.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T20:42:17Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T20:42:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"randall.becker@nexbridge.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/28956764?v=4"},"body":"On June 15, 2020 3:38 PM, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote:\n> Subject: Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)\n> >But the people that contribute to the code and to an open-source project\n> are the owner of that project so they get to get the calls.\n> \n> Ignoring everyone else's opinions and needs and just exerting your authority\n> is the very definition of authoritarianism. Yes, they do have the right. But if\n> they ignore the users, they can just use a fork that does what they want.\n> Have anyone considered that a breaking change in git might very well result\n> in a fork?\n\nWithout seeing the whole context of this response, I will answer simply as a repository manager, not a platform maintainer.\n\nWhile I fully understand the requirement to change the term \"master\" (and I think it should be changed), the situation must be put in the context of the available technology. In all major players, whether git itself, or GitHub, BitBucket, GitLab, or AzureGit (there are probably others, but I'm trying to cover 95%-ish), the repository manager/owner has the freedom TODAY to change the default branch to anything they want, within the limits of the character set encoding and name contents. No change in code is required to make this change in one of your repositories. Action is required, some configuration, but it is not a difficult or lengthy activity, to change the default behaviour.\n\nAs happened with Jenkins as an example, I expect that the community will handle this change over time as is practical to cover all the (previously mentioned hundreds of) touch points without braking the one DVCS that manages much of the current set of production operating system code (a.k.a. git).\n\nMy team still has a just few legacy repositories that still publish \"master\" as the main branch because if the impact on our deployment infrastructure - which is critically customer facing. We will address them when we can do that without impacting customers. But we are standardizing to a more GitFlow approach with \"development\" and \"release\" as our main branches and \"bugfix/*\" and \"feature/*\" as topic branches - with \"development\" published as the main branch. That is our choice. You can do something similar as technology stands today in the git ecosystem.\n\nI cannot comment on OpenSource or commercial git clients who might have limits on their own naming standards, but the bulk of them should be agnostic to the published default name. However, scripts that use git (and there are a huge number of those) should also respect the default branch as published without hard-coding the term \"master\" to allow us repository managers to seamlessly change what we publish for our communities (yes, I am guilty of not following my own advice today looking back historically because I did not know better some 8 years ago).\n\nWith Respect,\nRandall\n\n"},{"id":"399819","messageId":"CABPp-BH65boQvYG-p7sag95h8BwfHHUXYV5GEskOCd6E1GvvBg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAAwdEzBNwEVFcW5bTE-aWxnoQYamJH+DRhqRgc6abgo+bgYUzQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Elijah Newren","fromEmail":"newren@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T20:44:04Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T20:44:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"newren@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5455730?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:51 PM Alexandru Pătrănescu\n wrote:\n>\n> Sérgio\n> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:37 PM Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n> wrote:\n> >\n> > >But the people that contribute to the code and to an open-source\n> > project are the owner of that project so they get to get the calls.\n> >\n> > Ignoring everyone else's opinions and needs and just exerting your\n> > authority is the very definition of authoritarianism. Yes, they do have\n> > the right. But if they ignore the users, they can just use a fork that\n> > does what they want. Have anyone considered that a breaking change in\n> > git might very well result in a fork?\n> Well... fork happens sometimes when two groups of people completely\n> disagree and cannot work together.\n> I really hope a vote here would be enough to settle things.\n>\n> Sérgio, I'm actually with you on this side, just to state my opinion as well.\n>\n> I haven't yet heard of a person that is offended by git master branch.\n> I've heard thou about persons that think that some others will get offended.\n> But most of the time, I've heard about people that think this world\n> got crazy on git master branch naming :).\n>\n> But I guess you've heard that already from other participants already,\n> so I apologize for repeating it.\n>\n> And I believe that both of you, Sérgio and Jonathan, were a bit rude\n> to each other :)\n\nCalling out violations of the code of conduct certainly takes some\ndirectness, but merely calling out the behavioral violations is not in\nand of itself rude. Sérgio's behavior I think is exactly the type of\nreason we adopted the code of conduct; insulting others is not wanted\nand is not welcome on this list. The harder part of having a code of\nconduct is trying to coax people to follow it. Several folks tried\nnicer responses to Sérgio earlier in the thread, but to no avail.\nFrom my view, a more direct response was clearer needed. I'm grateful\nJonathan jumped in to do so; I thought he did an exemplary job.\n\nElijah\n"},{"id":"399824","messageId":"CABPp-BF8vo_fCbM1ct0MYFhQcVmPwfq7_Q3Fd+SnM0=gVmxkrQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006091126540.482@ZVAVAG-DN14RQO.ybpnyqbznva","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Elijah Newren","fromEmail":"newren@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T21:38:25Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T21:38:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"newren@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5455730?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:34 PM Johannes Schindelin\n wrote:\n>\n> I have reached out to Billy Griffin (the PM of GitHub Desktop) to learn\n> what might be good candidates for the default branch name, as GitHub\n> Desktop changed their repository's main branch name recently. This is what\n> he told me:\n>\n> [W]e did some research looking at the data at GitHub of the most\n> commonly used default branch names other than `master`. Most of them\n> were things like develop, release, staging, stable, production, etc.\n> that denoted some stage of the software lifecycle. We thought that\n> none of these are good options because a universally applicable\n> default name should allow for teams and projects to work in\n> different ways (and obviously if teams want to change it to reflect\n> their workflows, they're free to do so just like they do today - we\n> use `development` as the default branch in desktop/desktop, for\n> example).\n>\n> The three most common names that *weren't* in that category were\n> main, trunk, and source. \"Trunk\" has roots in SVN so there's some\n> precedent for it, but we've heard feedback that it's not\n> particularly intuitive for non-native English speakers, and \"source\"\n> in my opinion isn't accurate because it's only a single branch, not\n> the entire source. We've also seen \"default\" floated and it exists\n> in mercurial, but we've also heard feedback that it's potentially\n> sensitive due to financial default, so we might as well choose\n> something else if there's another good option.\n>\n> For that reason, we're thinking that `main` would likely be a good\n> choice because the name corresponds nicely to its purpose as the\n> default branch of a repo. It's also conveniently short to type,\n> and tab complete would continue to *just work* for those concerned\n> about muscle memory because the first two letters are the same as\n> `master`.\n\nLooks like they've done some good research; I'm glad someone has looked into it.\n\nIt probably doesn't matter at this point, but can I point out an\nadditional issue with \"default\"? I worry it's quite likely to lead to\nconfusion: does \"default branch\" mean the one named \"default\" or the\none HEAD points to? For example, at $DAYJOB, hundreds of repos\nswitched a few years ago to having \"develop\" be the default branch,\nbut did not delete \"master\". Had the default branch been named\n\"default\", we would have been in a funny situation where \"default\" was\nnot the default.\n\nYou may just think that's a humorous case, but it's more than that to\nme. Once upon a time in the Gnome community we had a theme called\n\"default\" that many people thought was rather ugly; a new theme was\ncreated with a different name that became the default, but for\nbackward compatibility the old one had to retain the name \"default\".\nSoon there were lots of themes and almost no one directly used either\nof these two, but the release notes were required to use the default\ntheme for screenshots (that is, the default theme, not the \"default\"\ntheme). Anyway, wires got crossed and there were some massive,\nheated, protracted flame wars that engulfed way too many people (see\nhttps://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2005/03/15/poor-eugenia/). While the\nreaction there was blown way out of proportion (the flame wars really\nwere unnecessary and having a code of conduct in place might have\nhelped prevent some of that rather poor behavior on both sides --\nmyself included), there was a nasty problem that arose from a simple\ncommunication disconnect that was real. It could have all been\navoided if \"default theme\" wasn't ambiguous and for the same reason, I\ndon't want \"default branch\" to be ambiguous. Although I wasn't\ndirectly on either side of the Gnome fiasco and was just one of many\nthat got pulled in as the whole project got dragged into the whirlpool\nof problems, I really don't want to be involved in a repeat of\nproblems of the sort \"oh! there's another default branch?!?\"\n\nHope that helps,\nElijah\n"},{"id":"399826","messageId":"CABPp-BFpE=fH7o7K-SLbU=k6NC4YN_jViu0ATeDHaZ+u_5UjGw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CABPp-BF8vo_fCbM1ct0MYFhQcVmPwfq7_Q3Fd+SnM0=gVmxkrQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Elijah Newren","fromEmail":"newren@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T21:46:07Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T21:46:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"newren@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5455730?v=4"},"body":"A quick clarification:\n\nOn Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:38 PM Elijah Newren wrote:\n>\n> It probably doesn't matter at this point, but can I point out an\n> additional issue with \"default\"? I worry it's quite likely to lead to\n> confusion: does \"default branch\" mean the one named \"default\" or the\n> one HEAD points to?\n\n...or the one HEAD *on the central server* points to? (This issue may\nnot be relevant to those that aren't operating with a central\nrepository workflow, but the branch checked out when the user first\nclones is often thought of as the \"default branch\".)\n"},{"id":"399834","messageId":"126c85da-cca5-a0e7-39bb-982fe63ffbdb@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-15T23:15:45Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-15T23:15:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"By the way, I just found out about this issue:\n\nhttps://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674\n\n76 upvotes against 490 downvotes and that's because it was shut down. If \nthat's anything to go by, this proposal is WILDLY unpopular. Unless \nanyone has any other metric, going through with it seems that will \ndisregard what the actual users want by a great, great margin and be \njust what I said earlier: an authoritarian display of power.\n\n"},{"id":"399840","messageId":"20200616010011.6638-1-hello@fangpenlin.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Fang-Pen Lin","fromEmail":"hello@fangpenlin.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T01:00:11Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T01:01:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"hello@fangpenlin.com","avatar":null},"body":"From: \"Fang-Pen Lin\" \n\nActually, I saw many blak people claimed they think this renaming \"master\" to \"main\" branch movement very offensive or even racist. Like this:\n\nQuote:\n\nhttps://twitter.com/Speedkicks/status/1272291128000167937\n\n> Reading a thread of white people, including the CEO of GitHub, advocating changing the name of the \"Master\" branch to make black devs more comfortable...\n> is the most racially uncomfortable I've ever felt about GitHub.\n\n> Reasoning: Living as a black person is not to constantly remember how different you are but how different other people believe you are and how that changes your experience.\n> Now I can't even say \"push to master\" w/o the paranoia everyone around me's thinking about me being black.\n\nI am not a black person, but I also found this movement to be very offensive. As a person grew up in a country used to have language and thought policing, i.e. people could end up in jail or even got killed because they say something. In that environment, you are taught not to say any opinion at all even it has totally nothing to do with the sensitive topics, like the leader of the country. Sometime it could just because this word sounds like that, people could interpret the way they like it to be, report you to the government and you will disappear very soon. I found this renaming movement pretty much like that.\n"},{"id":"399841","messageId":"e198b1a5-e104-d0e5-8904-37ce3937316d@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T01:38:00Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T01:38:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"\nI'd like to bring the opinion of someone that's black in this issue:\n\nhttps://twitter.com/Speedkicks/status/1272283853617459200\n\n >Reading a thread of white people, including the CEO of GitHub, \nadvocating changing the name of the \"Master\" branch to make black devs \nmore comfortable... is the most racially uncomfortable I've ever felt \nabout GitHub.\n\n\nhttps://twitter.com/Speedkicks/status/1272291128000167937\n >Reasoning: Living as a black person is not to constantly remember how \ndifferent you are but how different other people believe you are and how \nthat changes your experience.\n\n >Now I can't even say \"push to master\" w/o the paranoia everyone around \nme's thinking about me being black.\nSo congratulations, white saviors, you just made things awkward for \nactual black people in the community. You keep treating minorities as if \nthey are children. You don't actually respect them. You don't actually \nlisten to them. This is what you do, you just create a greater divide. \nYou just single them out.\n\n"},{"id":"399850","messageId":"CANgJU+Vs-hzU-Fg+iWAn349_azb3k_6PCzyY+S2C_5ZUTv7o=A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAeXzYokcpU8RnFdF7N5vC-geOdJSY5_Mjc-yssvbpjmgw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"demerphq","fromEmail":"demerphq@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T07:31:43Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T07:31:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"demerphq@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 08:35, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> But to deny that explosive content on the basis that you don't\n> personally feel it, that you've never experienced it? To claim that it\n> is \"meaningless\", that some people are \"perpetually offended\"? That's\n> willful ignorance on your part, a bad-faith effort to engage in\n> serious intellectual conversation about what is good and right, and\n> has no place in a discussion about creating an inclusive space for all\n> developers, let alone trying to bring about a more just world.\n\nWell said sir. I might quote that sometime.\n\nCheers,\nYves\n"},{"id":"399851","messageId":"CANgJU+WoGNKuvZHAtLAfNAUfFdoLWHiDis_rSV-AfT9WspmHgA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"b82bdf57-840d-f9c2-0e42-95a93d9336b7@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"demerphq","fromEmail":"demerphq@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T07:36:59Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T07:37:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"demerphq@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 20:24, Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n wrote:\n>\n> Ok, can you show me a single instance where \"master\" was confusing or\n> not descriptive enough?\n\nA: \"No you need to fetch master from the remote, then you need to\nmerge it to your local master and then push it to the master master\".\nB: \"remote master, local master and master master. wtf kind of master is that?\"\n\nYves\n"},{"id":"399852","messageId":"20200616074316.GA21462@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CANgJU+WoGNKuvZHAtLAfNAUfFdoLWHiDis_rSV-AfT9WspmHgA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2020-06-16T07:43:16Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T07:43:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:36:59AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 20:24, Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n> wrote:\n> >\n> > Ok, can you show me a single instance where \"master\" was confusing or\n> > not descriptive enough?\n> \n> A: \"No you need to fetch master from the remote, then you need to\n> merge it to your local master and then push it to the master master\".\n> B: \"remote master, local master and master master. wtf kind of master is that?\"\nWhich falls on the wording of the FAQ, not the terminology itself. If\nyou were confused I am sure there are ways to bring this up and even\nsubmit changes.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"399854","messageId":"CANgJU+XzD9Nnnu4qWExpOUBy+u1=23SRCQy-=6aAVFJAowkjYg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616074316.GA21462@kitsune.suse.cz","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"demerphq","fromEmail":"demerphq@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T08:01:54Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T08:02:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"demerphq@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:43, Michal Suchánek wrote:\n>\n> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:36:59AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 20:24, Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n> > wrote:\n> > >\n> > > Ok, can you show me a single instance where \"master\" was confusing or\n> > > not descriptive enough?\n> >\n> > A: \"No you need to fetch master from the remote, then you need to\n> > merge it to your local master and then push it to the master master\".\n> > B: \"remote master, local master and master master. wtf kind of master is that?\"\n> Which falls on the wording of the FAQ, not the terminology itself. If\n> you were confused I am sure there are ways to bring this up and even\n> submit changes.\n\nI think you missed my point entirely. Sergio asked how \"master\" might\nbe confusing, and I gave an example where real people found it\nconfusing. I have had the conversation I just outlined multiple times\nwhile teaching devs to use git on repos with \"master\" as the default\nbranch. In fact at work we renamed \"master\" to \"trunk\" when we\nmigrated our old CVS to git about a decade ago exactly to avoid this\nkind of confusion. Consider how this conversation goes for us:\n\nA: \"No you need to fetch trunk from the remote, then you need to merge\nit to your local trunk and then push it to the master trunk\".\nB: \"Ok.\"\n\nSimilarly when the perl project migrated to git we renamed \"master\" to\n\"blead\" to reduce the possibility \"master master\" confusion.\n\nSo I would say there is ample evidence that reasonable people consider\nthe \"master\" branch name a bit confusing. Furthermore, claiming that\nthe existence of a FAQ somehow makes this term not confusing is a bit\nstrange, as I would say that if you need a FAQ to explain something it\nis not very obvious to start with so you are essentially proving my\npoint for me.\n\nPersonally *I* have no problem understanding what the \"master\" branch\nis, I am pretty deeply familiar with how git works, I just think it is\nan inherently bad choice of default name for a distributed version\ncontrol system for reasons entirely unrelated to it being also a term\nrelated to slavery. The latter to me just makes changing the default\nand/or providing easy ways to customize it all the better a move as\nultimately it will produce less confusing and more inclusive software\nwith little to no real cost to anyone else.\n\ncheers,\nYves\n\n\n-- \nperl -Mre=debug -e \"/just|another|perl|hacker/\"\n"},{"id":"399855","messageId":"20200616083405.GA17381@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CANgJU+Vs-hzU-Fg+iWAn349_azb3k_6PCzyY+S2C_5ZUTv7o=A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-16T08:38:46Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T08:37:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:31:43AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 08:35, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> > But to deny that explosive content on the basis that you don't\n> > personally feel it, that you've never experienced it? To claim that it\n> > is \"meaningless\", that some people are \"perpetually offended\"? That's\n> > willful ignorance on your part, a bad-faith effort to engage in\n> > serious intellectual conversation about what is good and right, and\n> > has no place in a discussion about creating an inclusive space for all\n> > developers, let alone trying to bring about a more just world.\n> \n> Well said sir. I might quote that sometime.\n\nNo. The stupid idea. The stupid discussion. All world use this terminology\nand it disturb nobody with sane mind. And why we must change it? Because someone\nis completely mad and takes this as an insult to himself? There are many\n*real* problems in the world - famine, wars, drought, diseases, etc. What do\nyou know about this? Where is you HELP? Fucking hypocrites. All of you have\nwell-fed life - you know nothing about real problems. Do you think you can\njust rename something in you fucking code(JUST REPLACE ONE LETTERS WITH\nANOTHER ONE) and this helps somebody? Are you all really so stupid? If you\nwant to help, just lift your ass from a chair, toss a hamburger and go to\nthe street, find someone who need help and HELP HIM. Just help somebody! But\nthis is so hard. Real things are always hard. Every day you need to do something\nto make this world better. This is not what we want. We want just to sent $10\nsometime to some charity organization or change several letters in our computers.\nYes? This is so simple. Just do it and feel better, liers.\n\nWhole technical world look at you now and think:\n\n\"These men are comlete idiots. They really think that changing letters will change\nsomething in real life\".\n\nIf some of you don't want to write a code and want to do some politics, just\nleave and dedicate your life to politics. Why should we all suffer from someone's\npolical program? This is not the property of someone. This program is used all over\nthe world. Did you ask somebody outside of your sandbox, boys? Do you really\nunderstand the responsibility?\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"399857","messageId":"20200616085004.GB21462@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQx=+fM1FpAv+g3M+j7j4MgLJA03=MGFmXLvZcfJKAEpGg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2020-06-16T08:50:04Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T08:50:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"Hello,\n\nOn Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 05:16:57PM +0200, Simon Pieters wrote:\n> Thank you for your encouraging response, Brian, and the research of\n> what the change entails for git.\n> \n> I've added Don to the cc, who started to work on implementing this change:\n> \n> https://twitter.com/DEGoodmanWilson/status/1269931743320182784\n> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674\n> \n> Although I think it's reasonable to move away from 'master' regardless\n\nI think it's not. The word 'master' on its own without pairing it with\n'slave' does not automatically imply slave master.\n\nAs has been pointed out it may mean central person to an organization, a\nskilled person (as in a person who has mastered a skill or teching) and\nmost applicable to VCS something alike master document, master copy,\nmaster mix, etc.\n\nImplying the worst possible meaning points to bias and prejudice.\n\nFighting bias and prejudice (ie racism) with another bias and prejudice\nmight seem to provide relief short time.\n\nHowever, so long as bias and prejudice remains no progress is made.\n\nIf we embark on the misson to eradicate all and any words that can be\nundurstood as offensive in any context from all general language\nregardless of context we will soon have no language left.\n\nPeople keep repeating that words have weight. That's certainly true.\nHowever, there is the other side of the argument. We are not completely\npowerless to the weight the words carry for each of us, personally.\n\nGreat minds have came up with the option to reclaim words that we feel\nare offensive in our personal vocabulary by examining where the offense\ncomes from and if there is positive meaning we can attach to the word in\nquestion.\n\nThe effort should be spent on both sides. Otherwise this becames\nchildish, immature rampage. Some of the changes suggested as part of\nthis kind of acticism already look that way.\n\n> of its origin, today Tobie Langel pointed me to\n> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html\n> where, one year ago, Bastien Nocera made the case that git's 'master'\n> is in fact a reference to master/slave.\nAs has been pointed out already even in BitKeeper the use of\nmaster/slave it the exception rather than the norm.\n\nIt is common terminology used in database replication schemes and\nBitKeepr being a sort of database it has been used to describe similar\nschemes in the documentation. It has nothing to do with the naming of\nthe master branch in git.\n\nWith databases the suggested replacement is primary/repllica. With git\nthe replicas are made with the clone command which lends itself to\nnaming the replicas as well.\n\nThat all said there is nothing preventing projects using git today to\nuse different branch names. Many projects exist that don't have a\n'master' branch either for reasons of activism or simply beacuse it is\nnot fitting to their development workflow, they use localized branch\nnames, or whatever. Also the master copy meaning is typically not what\nnon-native English speakers would understand.\n\nWhat is brewing as response to this request is a feature that makes\ncreating and using projects without a 'master' branch work more smoothly\nfor the general user which is a good thing.\n\nKudos to git maintainers for handling this sanely. In the past not well\nthought out responses to requests like this caused a lot of grief and\nnegativity towards the software in question and this kind of activism in\ngeneral.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"399858","messageId":"20200616085936.GC21462@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CANgJU+XzD9Nnnu4qWExpOUBy+u1=23SRCQy-=6aAVFJAowkjYg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2020-06-16T08:59:36Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T08:59:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01:54AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 09:43, Michal Suchánek wrote:\n> >\n> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:36:59AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> > > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 20:24, Sérgio Augusto Vianna\n> > > wrote:\n> > > >\n> > > > Ok, can you show me a single instance where \"master\" was confusing or\n> > > > not descriptive enough?\n> > >\n> > > A: \"No you need to fetch master from the remote, then you need to\n> > > merge it to your local master and then push it to the master master\".\n> > > B: \"remote master, local master and master master. wtf kind of master is that?\"\n> > Which falls on the wording of the FAQ, not the terminology itself. If\n> > you were confused I am sure there are ways to bring this up and even\n> > submit changes.\n> \n> I think you missed my point entirely. Sergio asked how \"master\" might\nNo you did.\n\nWhat I am trying to say is you did not your job well when the FAQ for\ngit or your project has the answer \"...and then push it to the master\nmaster\".\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"399861","messageId":"20200616100424.39718-1-alexsmith@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"0dd6b6c2-4ea4-498d-4481-7f65988db293@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Alex Smith","fromEmail":"alexsmith@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T10:04:24Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T10:31:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alexsmith@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Whether or not any patch would be accepted, the damage is already done.\nFrom now on, people will judge you if you dare to use the name \"master\" anywhere\nand this is incredibly sad. These people are literally bullying us into\nsubmission in the name of political correctness where no harm was actually\ndone.\n\nThis sickens me.\n\n"},{"id":"399862","messageId":"1109121592306913@mail.yandex.ru","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616100424.39718-1-alexsmith@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Tokarev","fromEmail":"annulen@yandex.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-16T11:29:49Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T11:29:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"annulen@yandex.ru","avatar":null},"body":"\n\n16.06.2020, 13:31, \"Alex Smith\" :\n> Whether or not any patch would be accepted, the damage is already done.\n> From now on, people will judge you if you dare to use the name \"master\" anywhere\n> and this is incredibly sad. These people are literally bullying us into\n> submission in the name of political correctness where no harm was actually\n> done.\n>\n> This sickens me.\n\nI guess their next move might be to force sound engineers to rename master channel and\nderived term \"mastering\" into something more politically correct.\n"},{"id":"399863","messageId":"20200616113930.GA12332@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"1109121592306913@mail.yandex.ru","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-16T11:39:50Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T11:38:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 02:29:49PM +0300, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:\n> I guess their next move might be to force sound engineers to rename master channel and\n> derived term \"mastering\" into something more politically correct.\n\nWhat?!! Are they still use these amoral terminology?!! That's sad...\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"399864","messageId":"3cd5d8b9-a9f8-fbd1-f218-622f70e45566@whinis.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"c0c2d9ad-1d67-8ebe-0063-524005ca97fe@whinis.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Whinis","fromEmail":"whinis@whinis.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T11:38:33Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T11:38:38Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"whinis@whinis.com","avatar":null},"body":"> Whether or not any patch would be accepted, the damage is already done.\n> From now on, people will judge you if you dare to use the name \"master\" anywhere\n> and this is incredibly sad. These people are literally bullying us into\n> submission in the name of political correctness where no harm was actually\n> done.\n>\n> This sickens me.\nNot just that, any twitter use can complain and get entire communities \nto throw out all rules on changes to appear to be on the \"right\" side. \nIf anyone submitted a patch to change any functioning name without good \nreason, especially one assumed to never change and would likely break a \nsignificant number of external processes it would be denied without \nsecond thought. Here the entire thread didn't ask should we change it \nbut instead started on the premise, even though this is documented \nthroughout the world and millions or even billions of scripts and \nprograms assume it to be constant, it must change without discussion.\n\nNot just that the entire process has become a laughing stock that the \ntech community seriously believes anyone has a problem with 'master' but \neven worse that it will somehow fix something in the world. You can find \nno shortages of post on forums and websites of people wondering what \nexactly is trying to be accomplished.While not done here presumably due \nto being more difficult to access, every other venue of commenting has \nbeen either ignored (e.g. twitter) or closed to discussion under the \npremise its becoming to aggressive to argue against. This thread is not \nmuch better quickly coming to a decision that its not IF it should \nchange but WHAT it should change to.\n\nWhat reason could possibly be good enough to break backward \ncompatibility with itself, break assumed standards of interaction with \nthe software, and all without major review process? I have seen critical \nsecurity patches with more insight than how quickly this word change is \nbeing pushed through both here and other locations.\n"},{"id":"399865","messageId":"alpine.LFD.2.21.2006160738100.10454@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"1109121592306913@mail.yandex.ru","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Robert P. J. Day","fromEmail":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","sentAt":"2020-06-16T11:39:09Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T11:39:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rpjday@crashcourse.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/226084077?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:\n\n>\n>\n> 16.06.2020, 13:31, \"Alex Smith\" :\n> > Whether or not any patch would be accepted, the damage is already\n> > done. From now on, people will judge you if you dare to use the\n> > name \"master\" anywhere and this is incredibly sad. These people\n> > are literally bullying us into submission in the name of political\n> > correctness where no harm was actually done.\n> >\n> > This sickens me.\n>\n> I guess their next move might be to force sound engineers to rename\n> master channel and derived term \"mastering\" into something more\n> politically correct.\n\n nicely done ... a masterstroke of rhetoric.\n\n damn it ...\n\nrday\n"},{"id":"399866","messageId":"20200616121631.GA26959@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"3cd5d8b9-a9f8-fbd1-f218-622f70e45566@whinis.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-16T12:16:51Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T12:15:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 07:38:33AM -0400, Whinis wrote:\n> > Whether or not any patch would be accepted, the damage is already done.\n> > From now on, people will judge you if you dare to use the name \"master\" anywhere\n> > and this is incredibly sad. These people are literally bullying us into\n> > submission in the name of political correctness where no harm was actually\n> > done.\n> >\n> > This sickens me.\n> Not just that, any twitter use can complain and get entire communities \n> to throw out all rules on changes to appear to be on the \"right\" side. \n> If anyone submitted a patch to change any functioning name without good \n> reason, especially one assumed to never change and would likely break a \n> significant number of external processes it would be denied without \n> second thought. Here the entire thread didn't ask should we change it \n> but instead started on the premise, even though this is documented \n> throughout the world and millions or even billions of scripts and \n> programs assume it to be constant, it must change without discussion.\n\nSome people don't think about it. They not engeeners, they are linguistic\nracist. May be it time to fork git... and place it somewhere where people\nare better educated, more democratic and not so totalitarian to words.\n\n> Not just that the entire process has become a laughing stock that the \n> tech community seriously believes anyone has a problem with 'master' but \n> even worse that it will somehow fix something in the world. You can find \n> no shortages of post on forums and websites of people wondering what \n> exactly is trying to be accomplished.While not done here presumably due\n\nI'll tell you more. On almost every non-english forum you can see that\nusers wonder about this incredibly stupid process :-).\nAnd you are right. Anywhere in the world, outside US, this looks like a laughing\nstock :-). All people just sit near their monitors with popcorn and looking\nwhat else crazy white americans will do with all production stuff to which they\nhave access.\n\nActually, it's sad like any obscurantism.\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"399877","messageId":"20200616133054.2caiwqwp5mlmb54a@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"3cd5d8b9-a9f8-fbd1-f218-622f70e45566@whinis.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-16T13:30:54Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T13:31:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 07:38:33AM -0400, Whinis wrote:\n> > \n> > This sickens me.\n> Not just that, any twitter use can complain and get entire communities to\n> throw out all rules on changes to appear to be on the \"right\" side. If\n> anyone submitted a patch to change any functioning name without good reason,\n> especially one assumed to never change and would likely break a significant\n> number of external processes it would be denied without second thought. Here\n> the entire thread didn't ask should we change it but instead started on the\n> premise, even though this is documented throughout the world and millions or\n> even billions of scripts and programs assume it to be constant, it must\n> change without discussion.\n\nLet's leave emotionally charged rhetoric and discuss this like \nreasonable human beings.\n\nHere are facts:\n\n1. Git is distributed software. It's not a central service and it does \n not manage any code hosting platforms. It has no control over what \n Github, Gitlab, whatnot or other decide to do. If you don't like what \n they are doing, take it up with them and keep it off this list.\n\n2. Branch naming is entirely the choice of individual repository \n maintainers. Some prefer not to have a \"master\" branch, and it's not \n simply because of \"political correctness\" reasons as everyone \n insists:\n \n - they may prefer to have \"stable\" and \"development\" branches\n - they may want to use localized names for all their naming \n conventions (using Cyrillic, Hanzi, Kana, whatever)\n - they may be goofing off (there's a furry-related repository on \n GitHub with the main branch called \"yiffed\")\n\n3. In your example, \"millions and billions\" of scripts are already wrong \n if they assume that there is always a \"master\" branch. However, it \n doesn't matter, because unless someone actively renames a branch in \n an existing repo that they work with, they will continue working just \n fine. Nobody is talking about banning the use of the word \"master\" \n for any existing branches. I am 100% certain that Linux mainline will \n continue to happen in refs/heads/master, because the fallout of \n renaming that would be terrible.\n\n4. In Git, local branch names do not need to map to remote branch names. \n Your local branch \"upstream\" can track remote branch \"development\". \n If the remote branch gets renamed, you simply update your \n configuration and continue without change.\n\n5. The change proposal has two parts to it:\n\n 1. Allow users of Git to designate another branch as their primary. \n As Junio pointed out, Git treats one of the branches as special, \n but currently that is hardcoded to \"master\". This change will make \n this configurable so that projects with different naming \n conventions can designate some other branch as their primary.\n I've seen no objection to this from anyone.\n\n 2. Consider if the default branch created during \"git init\" should be \n called \"master\" or if it should be called something else. Options \n are to keep it \"master\" for legacy reasons or to make it something \n more descriptive like \"main\". Since this would be merely the \n default configuration option, packagers and sysops can set it to \n be whatever they like via /etc/gitconfig, and individual \n developers can set this in their ~/.gitconfig.\n\nI invite anyone to show just how any of the above is unreasonable.\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399880","messageId":"834b0165-61c7-1313-6bc9-387d8a31ef76@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616133054.2caiwqwp5mlmb54a@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"John Turner","fromEmail":"whinis@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T13:55:29Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T13:55:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"whinis@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"> Let's leave emotionally charged rhetoric and discuss this like\n> reasonable human beings.\nThat would be fine except the entire thread is started on emotionally \ncharged rhetoric\n\n> 1. Git is distributed software. It's not a central service and it does\n> not manage any code hosting platforms. It has no control over what\n> Github, Gitlab, whatnot or other decide to do. If you don't like what\n> they are doing, take it up with them and keep it off this list.\nBeing that the talk of changing the default name has been said to match \nup with their efforts how can it be kept off the list? Even the initial \nstart to this pointed to other projects as a reason why this should \nhappen. Seems kind of an odd fence to setup whenever nearly everything \nabout this starts with github and other projects.\n\n> 2. Branch naming is entirely the choice of individual repository\n> maintainers. Some prefer not to have a \"master\" branch, and it's not\n> simply because of \"political correctness\" reasons as everyone\n> insists:\n> \n> - they may prefer to have \"stable\" and \"development\" branches\n> - they may want to use localized names for all their naming\n> conventions (using Cyrillic, Hanzi, Kana, whatever)\n> - they may be goofing off (there's a furry-related repository on\n> GitHub with the main branch called \"yiffed\")\nMy understanding is you can already delete the master branch and \nforce-push that. So back to this topic why does anything need to change?\n\n> 3. In your example, \"millions and billions\" of scripts are already wrong\n> if they assume that there is always a \"master\" branch. However, it\n> doesn't matter, because unless someone actively renames a branch in\n> an existing repo that they work with, they will continue working just\n> fine. Nobody is talking about banning the use of the word \"master\"\n> for any existing branches. I am 100% certain that Linux mainline will\n> continue to happen in refs/heads/master, because the fallout of\n> renaming that would be terrible.\nThey may be wrong but being while Git is not a central service is is \nused in millions of organizations and by millions of organizations \nthrough central services such as Github. Through this distributed use \nsome things are assumed whenever creating new repositories and yes the \nmaster branch is one of these. Nearly every tutorial on Git or using get \nwill reference the master branch and its is how many people learn. Its \nalready been shown in the patch how these changes might break on \nexisting repos due to assumption of the main/master/primary/ branch is no longer what it used to be leading to a need to fix \nall configs on all repos. Also it has been pointed out how disconnects \nbetween configs between two different clones could lead to issues.\n\nRequiring every organization or individual who uses Git to entirely \nretool due to changes in a base assumption is the exact opposite you \nwant of any stable software. The claim that this only affects new \nrepositories so its immaterial is an odd foot to stand on being that \nalmost all of these scripts assume something about new repositories that \nwill now be different.\n\n> 4. In Git, local branch names do not need to map to remote branch names.\n> Your local branch \"upstream\" can track remote branch \"development\".\n> If the remote branch gets renamed, you simply update your\n> configuration and continue without change.\nWhile true this is more of an advanced feature that many users don't \nknow about. Saying that its ok because you can fix it with something \nmore complicated sounds like the worst possible reply.\n\n\n> 5. The change proposal has two parts to it:\n>\n> 1. Allow users of Git to designate another branch as their primary.\n> As Junio pointed out, Git treats one of the branches as special,\n> but currently that is hardcoded to \"master\". This change will make\n> this configurable so that projects with different naming\n> conventions can designate some other branch as their primary.\n> I've seen no objection to this from anyone.\nThere should be an object to any major change to the underlying code \nsuch as this without good reason for doing such. Being that this is not \na security issue and as you have pointed out people can already name \ntheir branches whatever they like its adding complexity to an already \ncomplex system. Being that we are as you say detaching this from \n\"emotionally charged rhetoric\" and being \"reasonable human beings.\" what \ngood reason is there to introduce such complexity if users appear to \noverall not want it and those that do already have an alternative?\n\n> 2. Consider if the default branch created during \"git init\" should be\n> called \"master\" or if it should be called something else. Options\n> are to keep it \"master\" for legacy reasons or to make it something\n> more descriptive like \"main\". Since this would be merely the\n> default configuration option, packagers and sysops can set it to\n> be whatever they like via /etc/gitconfig, and individual\n> developers can set this in their ~/.gitconfig.\nI have seen no one in this email chain nor the one asking for what the \ndefault name should be even entertain the idea that it should be left at \nall. Nor have I seen any attempts to accept reasoning for why it \nshouldn't change. Changing the default while seemingly simple can have \nlong reaching consequences as anyone in development would know. Claiming \nits merely a default is rather disingenuous for a piece of software as \nwidely used as Git.\n\nI leave with this, if we are to leave out the emotions what good reason \nis there to push through this change?\n\n-whinis\n\n"},{"id":"399882","messageId":"20200616141441.GH21462@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"834b0165-61c7-1313-6bc9-387d8a31ef76@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2020-06-16T14:14:41Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T14:14:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:55:29AM -0400, John Turner wrote:\n\n> > 2. Branch naming is entirely the choice of individual repository\n> > maintainers. Some prefer not to have a \"master\" branch, and it's not\n> > simply because of \"political correctness\" reasons as everyone\n> > insists:\n> > - they may prefer to have \"stable\" and \"development\" branches\n> > - they may want to use localized names for all their naming\n> > conventions (using Cyrillic, Hanzi, Kana, whatever)\n> > - they may be goofing off (there's a furry-related repository on\n> > GitHub with the main branch called \"yiffed\")\n> My understanding is you can already delete the master branch and force-push\n> that. So back to this topic why does anything need to change?\nAnd people indeed do that as this thread point out. Git can do better\nsupporting this use case. If people are willing to spend time on that\nit's their call.\n> \n> > 3. In your example, \"millions and billions\" of scripts are already wrong\n> > if they assume that there is always a \"master\" branch. However, it\n> > doesn't matter, because unless someone actively renames a branch in\n> > an existing repo that they work with, they will continue working just\n> > fine. Nobody is talking about banning the use of the word \"master\"\n> > for any existing branches. I am 100% certain that Linux mainline will\n> > continue to happen in refs/heads/master, because the fallout of\n> > renaming that would be terrible.\n> They may be wrong but being while Git is not a central service is is used in\n> millions of organizations and by millions of organizations through central\n> services such as Github. Through this distributed use some things are\n> assumed whenever creating new repositories and yes the master branch is one\n> of these. Nearly every tutorial on Git or using get will reference the\n> master branch and its is how many people learn. Its already been shown in\n> the patch how these changes might break on existing repos due to assumption\n> of the main/master/primary/ branch is no longer what it\n> used to be leading to a need to fix all configs on all repos. Also it has\n> been pointed out how disconnects between configs between two different\n> clones could lead to issues.\n> \n> Requiring every organization or individual who uses Git to entirely retool\n> due to changes in a base assumption is the exact opposite you want of any\n> stable software. The claim that this only affects new repositories so its\n> immaterial is an odd foot to stand on being that almost all of these scripts\n> assume something about new repositories that will now be different.\n\nHave you even read what the proposed change is?\n\nIt allows changing the name of the branch that is created by git init\nusing a configuration variable. Nothing else.\n\nIt is also proposed to change the default for this variable in a future\nrelease of git that is expected to have far more disruptive changes,\nsuch as different hash used for commit IDs.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"399883","messageId":"201a33b3-478c-fcd8-e707-63baab09e712@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616133054.2caiwqwp5mlmb54a@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sérgio Augusto Vianna","fromEmail":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T14:24:05Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T14:24:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sergio.a.vianna@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/91913958f2ffbf25179ced404c3f45fe12ca1d78fd2e63963524b8c55b1d9849?d=mp&s=160"},"body":" >Let's leave emotionally charged rhetoric and discuss this like \nreasonable human beings.\n\nOh, now we put emotions aside? This whole thing started because white \npeople FELT like black people FELT offended by the word \"master\" on it's \nown. But if that's the case, I'll just argue there is no need to avoid \nthe word master at all. After all, feeling aside, right?\n\n"},{"id":"399885","messageId":"20200616142651.GA27946@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616133054.2caiwqwp5mlmb54a@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-16T14:27:01Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T14:25:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:30:54AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:\n> Let's leave emotionally charged rhetoric and discuss this like \n> reasonable human beings.\n\nIf we were all reasonable human beings, then this \"useful\" feature\nwould wait in order until other really useful things to be done.\n\n> Here are facts:\n> 2. Branch naming is entirely the choice of individual repository \n> maintainers. Some prefer not to have a \"master\" branch, and it's not\n\nSome :-)? This \"some\" are very few people/projects and no one of them have\nserious reasons to do it(it pampering).\n\n> simply because of \"political correctness\" reasons as everyone \n> insists:\n\nYou are simply lie, because i don't think that you don't understand that this\nstatement is wrong. If so, why this \"useful\" feature didn't appear earlier? So\nmany people/projects suffer without it all time until today, isn't it?\n\n> - they may prefer to have \"stable\" and \"development\" branches\n\nAnd what do stop from doing this now? Existent master branch?\n\n> - they may want to use localized names for all their naming \n> conventions (using Cyrillic, Hanzi, Kana, whatever)\n\nNo. They wann't. Tell you as cyrillic user, some conventions exist that\nbranches and tags should be in ASCII(no one with a sane mind want to\nnot to do so). And if you want to make a public repo and collaborate\nwith others you will use ASCII in any case. Otherwise nobody understand you.\n\n> - they may be goofing off (there's a furry-related repository on \n> GitHub with the main branch called \"yiffed\")\n\nHm... Is this a technical reason?\nSo, i've read some fantasies and nothing that looks like technical reasons for\nsuch changes.\n\n> 3. In your example, \"millions and billions\" of scripts are already wrong \n> if they assume that there is always a \"master\" branch. However, it\n\nMay be they assume this, because about 15 years master branch was *always*\nhere, didn't think about it :-D? And nobody told that somebody will come and\nbreak it somewhen.\n\n> 4. In Git, local branch names do not need to map to remote branch names. \n> Your local branch \"upstream\" can track remote branch \"development\". \n> If the remote branch gets renamed, you simply update your \n> configuration and continue without change.\n\nWe have so little problems and difficulties, that yet another one willn't\nmake our life more hard.\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"399886","messageId":"db005e71-d74b-ce31-afba-50328445fc3a@whinis.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616141441.GH21462@kitsune.suse.cz","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Whinis","fromEmail":"whinis@whinis.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T14:29:18Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T14:29:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"whinis@whinis.com","avatar":null},"body":"> Have you even read what the proposed change is?\n>\n> It allows changing the name of the branch that is created by git init\n> using a configuration variable. Nothing else.\n>\n> It is also proposed to change the default for this variable in a future\n> release of git that is expected to have far more disruptive changes,\n> such as different hash used for commit IDs.\nOne is a rather massive change presumably to prevent collisions and fix \na potentially catastrophic failure of a repository, the other could \nintroduce rather massive breaking and disruptive changes..... because? \nTrying to downplay that its just changing the name is rather \ndisingenuous especially with how much it is changing. Its not a simple \nrename and breaks a base assumption which is not something that should \nbe done or allowed lightly.\n\nComparing disruptive changes that are to maintain the actual use and \nfunction going forward of the software and one that appears to be fueled \nsolely by an emotional drive without any articulate technical merit so \nfar is an odd choice to make.\n\n"},{"id":"399895","messageId":"20200616160349.t65we3jkpq7hqwra@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616142651.GA27946@legohost","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-16T16:03:49Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T16:04:00Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 05:27:01PM +0300, Oleg wrote:\n> \n> > Here are facts:\n> > 2. Branch naming is entirely the choice of individual repository \n> > maintainers. Some prefer not to have a \"master\" branch, and it's not\n> \n> Some :-)? This \"some\" are very few people/projects and no one of them have\n> serious reasons to do it(it pampering).\n\nIt doesn't matter how few repositories need it. If you've been on this \nlist, you would have seen patches being submitted and accepted that fix \nbugs in corner cases that can't possibly be experienced by the vast \nmajority of Git users.\n\n> > simply because of \"political correctness\" reasons as everyone \n> > insists:\n> \n> You are simply lie, because i don't think that you don't understand that this\n> statement is wrong. If so, why this \"useful\" feature didn't appear earlier? So\n> many people/projects suffer without it all time until today, isn't it?\n\nFor the same reason any other useful feature didn't appear earlier. \nNobody has brought it up or spent enough time considering it.\n\n> > - they may want to use localized names for all their naming \n> > conventions (using Cyrillic, Hanzi, Kana, whatever)\n> \n> No. They wann't. Tell you as cyrillic user, some conventions exist that\n> branches and tags should be in ASCII(no one with a sane mind want to\n> not to do so). And if you want to make a public repo and collaborate\n> with others you will use ASCII in any case. Otherwise nobody understand you.\n\n1C scripting language is written entirely in Russian. Many official \nRussian sites use .рф domain names. If someone wants to make all their \nbranch names in Cyrillic, why should we prevent them from doing so?\n\n> > 3. In your example, \"millions and billions\" of scripts are already wrong \n> > if they assume that there is always a \"master\" branch. However, it\n> \n> May be they assume this, because about 15 years master branch was *always*\n> here, didn't think about it :-D? And nobody told that somebody will come and\n> break it somewhen.\n\nVery soon we'll break git hashes from being sha1 by default. Just \nbecause they've been sha1 for the past 15 years doesn't mean we \nshouldn't or can't do it.\n\n> > 4. In Git, local branch names do not need to map to remote branch \n> > names. Your local branch \"upstream\" can track remote branch \n> > \"development\". If the remote branch gets renamed, you simply \n> > update your configuration and continue without change.\n> \n> We have so little problems and difficulties, that yet another one willn't\n> make our life more hard.\n\nThen raise this with your upstream repository -- it's not a Git issue.\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399896","messageId":"20200616154942.z75uo34wsbcvphe5@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"834b0165-61c7-1313-6bc9-387d8a31ef76@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-16T15:49:42Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T16:04:26Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:55:29AM -0400, John Turner wrote:\n> \n> > 1. Git is distributed software. It's not a central service and it does\n> > not manage any code hosting platforms. It has no control over what\n> > Github, Gitlab, whatnot or other decide to do. If you don't like what\n> > they are doing, take it up with them and keep it off this list.\n> Being that the talk of changing the default name has been said to match up\n> with their efforts how can it be kept off the list? Even the initial start\n> to this pointed to other projects as a reason why this should happen. Seems\n> kind of an odd fence to setup whenever nearly everything about this starts\n> with github and other projects.\n\nGithub is an equal partner in this conversation and their opinions weigh \nabout as much as anyone else's. However, they are certainly one of the \nlarger users of Git, so if they ask to make it possible to change the \ndefault branch name without any negative effects on how Git works, this \nis a valid request and a valid discussion.\n\n> My understanding is you can already delete the master branch and force-push\n> that. So back to this topic why does anything need to change?\n\nIt doesn't work perfectly. The goal is to improve it so it does.\n\n> They may be wrong but being while Git is not a central service is is used in\n> millions of organizations and by millions of organizations through central\n> services such as Github. Through this distributed use some things are\n> assumed whenever creating new repositories and yes the master branch is one\n> of these. Nearly every tutorial on Git or using get will reference the\n> master branch and its is how many people learn. \n\nThis is true for all technical documentation, though. 10 years ago I \ncould reasonably expect \"print foo\" to work in Python, but now it will \nreturn an error. Most documentation written for the Linux kernel is \nwoefully outdated a few years after its publication.\n\nDocumentation has never prevented projects from implementing changes \nthat would require docs to be updated.\n\n> Its already been shown in\n> the patch how these changes might break on existing repos due to assumption\n> of the main/master/primary/ branch is no longer what it\n> used to be leading to a need to fix all configs on all repos.\n\nAs this change would be made by individual repository maintainers, this \nis out of scope of this discussion. None of the changes being discussed \nwould in any way force existing repositories to rename their branches.\n\n> Requiring every organization or individual who uses Git to entirely retool\n> due to changes in a base assumption is the exact opposite you want of any\n> stable software.\n\n\"Entirely retool\" is not a fair statement for \"set a single config value \nin a single file\".\n\n> Being that this is not a security\n> issue and as you have pointed out people can already name their branches\n> whatever they like its adding complexity to an already complex system. Being\n> that we are as you say detaching this from \"emotionally charged rhetoric\"\n> and being \"reasonable human beings.\" what good reason is there to introduce\n> such complexity if users appear to overall not want it and those that do\n> already have an alternative?\n\nYou can't avoid the following facts:\n\n1. Projects are already renaming their branches to whatever they want\n2. There are parts of git where this breaks internal logic\n3. We should fix internal logic so it doesn't break\n\nThe fact that Git doesn't 100% work with arbitrary branch names is a bug \nthat needs to be fixed. Introducing a config variable that designates \nthe primary branch name is the way to fix it.\n\n> I have seen no one in this email chain nor the one asking for what the\n> default name should be even entertain the idea that it should be left at\n> all.\n\nNobody is preventing you from being that person.\n\n> I leave with this, if we are to leave out the emotions what good \n> reason is there to push through this change?\n\nMost software development is reactive to emergent situations. In my \nview, making it possible for someone to have an arbitrary collection of \nbranches in their repository is reason enough to push this change.\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399898","messageId":"0f54e6e6-c09f-9894-ea06-812cc4f7e88b@whinis.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616154942.z75uo34wsbcvphe5@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Whinis","fromEmail":"whinis@whinis.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T16:09:05Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T16:09:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"whinis@whinis.com","avatar":null},"body":"\nOn 6/16/2020 11:49 AM, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:\n> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:55:29AM -0400, John Turner wrote:\n>>> 1. Git is distributed software. It's not a central service and it does\n>>> not manage any code hosting platforms. It has no control over what\n>>> Github, Gitlab, whatnot or other decide to do. If you don't like what\n>>> they are doing, take it up with them and keep it off this list.\n>> Being that the talk of changing the default name has been said to match up\n>> with their efforts how can it be kept off the list? Even the initial start\n>> to this pointed to other projects as a reason why this should happen. Seems\n>> kind of an odd fence to setup whenever nearly everything about this starts\n>> with github and other projects.\n> Github is an equal partner in this conversation and their opinions weigh\n> about as much as anyone else's. However, they are certainly one of the\n> larger users of Git, so if they ask to make it possible to change the\n> default branch name without any negative effects on how Git works, this\n> is a valid request and a valid discussion.\nThis makes me highly confused because just one email earlier said to \nleave them off this list and now you are saying in one line their \nopinion weighs as much as everyone else and then say they are a larger \nuser so if they ask it should happen. You have quickly jumped from their \nopinion shouldn't matter to its equal to their opinion is apparently \nworth more because they are a large user.\n\nSo which is it? Should they be left off the list or is the mere fact \nthey are changing something enough to ignore what this could break?\n>> My understanding is you can already delete the master branch and force-push\n>> that. So back to this topic why does anything need to change?\n> It doesn't work perfectly. The goal is to improve it so it does.\n>\n>> They may be wrong but being while Git is not a central service is is used in\n>> millions of organizations and by millions of organizations through central\n>> services such as Github. Through this distributed use some things are\n>> assumed whenever creating new repositories and yes the master branch is one\n>> of these. Nearly every tutorial on Git or using get will reference the\n>> master branch and its is how many people learn.\n> This is true for all technical documentation, though. 10 years ago I\n> could reasonably expect \"print foo\" to work in Python, but now it will\n> return an error. Most documentation written for the Linux kernel is\n> woefully outdated a few years after its publication.\n>\n> Documentation has never prevented projects from implementing changes\n> that would require docs to be updated.\nA single project not conforming is different than changing the default \nand forcing all documentation to be updated. Not to mention this very \nwell could cause a split in the community itself leading to even more \nissue. print in python is a poor example as it had obvious technical \nmerit to remove items that did not match other paradigms in the \nlanguage. Also the Linux Kernel ABI is extremely well documented and \neven items from 10 years or even 20 years ago conform to it. My argument \nis not documentation alone should never be updated its that this is a \nfundamental change invaliding essentially all current available \nresources. A change this large should require just as large a reason to \nimplement.\n>> Its already been shown in\n>> the patch how these changes might break on existing repos due to assumption\n>> of the main/master/primary/ branch is no longer what it\n>> used to be leading to a need to fix all configs on all repos.\n> As this change would be made by individual repository maintainers, this\n> is out of scope of this discussion. None of the changes being discussed\n> would in any way force existing repositories to rename their branches.\nSo the effect of changes to how the default install works on users is \nout of scope? What exactly is in scope then because other services were \nout of scope earlier but now are apparently an important input. I would \nsay how this change affects the majority of users is very much the exact \nreason this should not happen.\n>> Requiring every organization or individual who uses Git to entirely retool\n>> due to changes in a base assumption is the exact opposite you want of any\n>> stable software.\n> \"Entirely retool\" is not a fair statement for \"set a single config value\n> in a single file\".\n\nKinda disagrees with the definition of default doesn't it if your fix is \nto tell everyone using current tools to change the default back to what \nit was so it continues to work? Its nearly impossible to estimate how \nmany things were coded by different interns and are now technical debt \nand would need to be changed either in all future deployments defeating \nthe point of a default or require significant work to rework.\n\nAsking all users to change their methods going forward or rework all \ntheir technical debt are both extremely unfair to users.\n\n>> Being that this is not a security\n>> issue and as you have pointed out people can already name their branches\n>> whatever they like its adding complexity to an already complex system. Being\n>> that we are as you say detaching this from \"emotionally charged rhetoric\"\n>> and being \"reasonable human beings.\" what good reason is there to introduce\n>> such complexity if users appear to overall not want it and those that do\n>> already have an alternative?\n> You can't avoid the following facts:\n>\n> 1. Projects are already renaming their branches to whatever they want\n> 2. There are parts of git where this breaks internal logic\n> 3. We should fix internal logic so it doesn't break\n>\n> The fact that Git doesn't 100% work with arbitrary branch names is a bug\n> that needs to be fixed. Introducing a config variable that designates\n> the primary branch name is the way to fix it.\n\n1. If they are already renaming their branches then they have no issues\n\n2. if there is bugs that needs to be fixed but no where have I seen \nexamples where this breaks and need I remind you the title of the list \nis \"Rename offensive terminology (master)\" which is not saying things \nare broken but that things must change due to offense.\n\nWhat is an example of Git not working with arbitrary branch names? What \nfix does changing the primary branch name fix if the issue is with \narbitrary branch names?\n\n>> I have seen no one in this email chain nor the one asking for what the\n>> default name should be even entertain the idea that it should be left at\n>> all.\n> Nobody is preventing you from being that person.\nThen consider me that person.\n>> I leave with this, if we are to leave out the emotions what good\n>> reason is there to push through this change?\n> Most software development is reactive to emergent situations. In my\n> view, making it possible for someone to have an arbitrary collection of\n> branches in their repository is reason enough to push this change.\nYou yourself have admitted its already possible to have an arbitrary \ncollection of branches, so what does this change?\n"},{"id":"399900","messageId":"20200616161935.151957-1-alexsmith@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616141441.GH21462@kitsune.suse.cz","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Alex Smith","fromEmail":"alexsmith@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T16:19:35Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T16:19:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alexsmith@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"\n> It allows changing the name of the branch that is created by git init\n> using a configuration variable. Nothing else.\n\nAnd I'm all for it. Having an QoL feature to do something that you could\nalready do is always welcome. We only care about what the default is, for\nreasons already mentioned.\nHaving an extra flag requires user input, the user knows about that their\nmain branch is something other than the default master.\n\nMost user won't be using this flag, and they will stick to the default. And\nwhen they start using a service, that service also assumes that the default \nname is the same. These services are probably already configurable to change\non which branch they operate because git also allows to change it already.\n\nBut many people will just stick to the default. When these services change\nthis assumption, everyone else who relied on it has to explicitly set the\nservice back, or rename.\n\nOne example is shields.io https://github.com/badges/shields/issues/5215\n\nChanging the default is frowned upon because it solves nothing and just\ncauses problems, as other services has to change their assumptions.\n(And this doesn't make them bad software as others said\npreviously. If you have to interact with a repository remotely without being\nable to ask questions first, you have to make assumptions to provide optional\nparameters, and these optional parameters will only be set if you know that\nyou don't use the expected default, and many people already did, breaking\ntheir setup when the service provider changes this assumption)\nGiving the ability to change it more easily than before, is a welcome change.\n\nWhat git can't control anyway is what GitHub, GitLab and the others will do,\nand they already can without changing anything. If GitHub decides to break\nthese services and cause fragmentation, that's a thing not to be discussed\nhere.\n\nAnd if they do cause fragmentation and git will be the last to keep the\nconvention, it will sadly have no choice but to bend, just to mitigate\nfurther damage.\n\n"},{"id":"399907","messageId":"20200616172749.GB18874@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616160349.t65we3jkpq7hqwra@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-16T17:27:49Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T17:26:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:03:49PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:\n> It doesn't matter how few repositories need it. If you've been on this \n> list, you would have seen patches being submitted and accepted that fix \n> bugs in corner cases that can't possibly be experienced by the vast \n> majority of Git users.\n\n\"master\" branch is not the bug. There is nothing to fix here. There is\nneed to fix something in somebody heads, not in the code.\n\n> For the same reason any other useful feature didn't appear earlier. \n> Nobody has brought it up or spent enough time considering it.\n\nThis feature isn't considered enough time. It like a rocket.\n\n> > No. They wann't. Tell you as cyrillic user, some conventions exist that\n> > branches and tags should be in ASCII(no one with a sane mind want to\n> > not to do so). And if you want to make a public repo and collaborate\n> > with others you will use ASCII in any case. Otherwise nobody understand you.\n> \n> 1C scripting language is written entirely in Russian. Many official\n\n1C is a bad example and you know this :-).\n\n> Russian sites use .рф domain names. If someone wants to make all their \n> branch names in Cyrillic, why should we prevent them from doing so?\n\nBecause there are no such people. You try to fix non-existent problem.\n\n> > May be they assume this, because about 15 years master branch was *always*\n> > here, didn't think about it :-D? And nobody told that somebody will come and\n> > break it somewhen.\n> \n> Very soon we'll break git hashes from being sha1 by default. Just \n> because they've been sha1 for the past 15 years doesn't mean we \n> shouldn't or can't do it.\n\nHm. No. Replacing of sha1 have technical reasons and this change have not.\nIf \"master\" name will stay as a default, this change will make at least\nsome sense.\n\nSomebody, may be you, told here that this \"amazing feature\" can be easily\nconfigured with help of configuration files in any distros. So, let's\nset \"master\" name a default and github(i'm shure it have at least one competent\nadmin that can edit a config file of git) change this setting by itself.\nIt's logically correct to set default to a value that *most* users want and\ngive a minority a way to change this setting.\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"399909","messageId":"20200616174206.oana33736jkemyqs@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616172749.GB18874@legohost","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-16T17:42:06Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T17:42:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:27:49PM +0300, Oleg wrote:\n> > Russian sites use .рф domain names. If someone wants to make all \n> > their branch names in Cyrillic, why should we prevent them from \n> > doing so?\n> \n> Because there are no such people. You try to fix non-existent problem.\n\nWe can reasonably expect that there will be a government decree coming \nout tomorrow that will make it illegal to use non-cyrillic terminology \nin government projects. You know this is entirely possible.\n\n(Heck, every time we promote \"pu\" to \"master\" it can be seen as \npolitically charged commentary on current Russian events.)\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"399911","messageId":"CAFZPMoYKSPsP2Q35UW-5Fxjye6PEioS3DGY6aXa3zbc5jg4HRA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616174206.oana33736jkemyqs@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sergey Lapin","fromEmail":"slapinid@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T18:35:29Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T18:35:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"slapinid@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"But politically-charged events in Russia do not affect people outside much.\nAlso most of it is totally ignored inside too.\n\nOn Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:43 PM Konstantin Ryabitsev\n wrote:\n>\n> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:27:49PM +0300, Oleg wrote:\n> > > Russian sites use .рф domain names. If someone wants to make all\n> > > their branch names in Cyrillic, why should we prevent them from\n> > > doing so?\n> >\n> > Because there are no such people. You try to fix non-existent problem.\n>\n> We can reasonably expect that there will be a government decree coming\n> out tomorrow that will make it illegal to use non-cyrillic terminology\n> in government projects. You know this is entirely possible.\n>\n> (Heck, every time we promote \"pu\" to \"master\" it can be seen as\n> politically charged commentary on current Russian events.)\n>\n> -K\n"},{"id":"399914","messageId":"20200616190342.GC27441@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616174206.oana33736jkemyqs@chatter.i7.local","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-16T19:03:42Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T19:02:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 01:42:06PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:\n> > Because there are no such people. You try to fix non-existent problem.\n> \n> We can reasonably expect that there will be a government decree coming \n> out tomorrow that will make it illegal to use non-cyrillic terminology \n> in government projects. You know this is entirely possible.\n\nNo. This is not possible. This is a fantasy.\n\n> (Heck, every time we promote \"pu\" to \"master\" it can be seen as \n> politically charged commentary on current Russian events.)\n\n\"current Russian events\" :-D? And what are these current events?\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"399935","messageId":"CABPp-BGV-CVZ5swYNQpF-su3+yc1=P96g-tKxKtcrgvxhA+AYA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616083405.GA17381@legohost","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Elijah Newren","fromEmail":"newren@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T19:33:18Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T19:33:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"newren@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5455730?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:39 AM Oleg wrote:\n>\n> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:31:43AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 08:35, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> > > But to deny that explosive content on the basis that you don't\n> > > personally feel it, that you've never experienced it? To claim that it\n> > > is \"meaningless\", that some people are \"perpetually offended\"? That's\n> > > willful ignorance on your part, a bad-faith effort to engage in\n> > > serious intellectual conversation about what is good and right, and\n> > > has no place in a discussion about creating an inclusive space for all\n> > > developers, let alone trying to bring about a more just world.\n> >\n> > Well said sir. I might quote that sometime.\n\n...\n> The stupid idea.\n> The stupid discussion.\n> All world use this terminology and it disturb nobody with sane mind.\n...\n> Because someone is completely mad...\n> Fucking hypocrites.\n> Are you all really so stupid?\n> Just do it and feel better, liers.\n\nPlease stop. Bringing up reasons why proposed changes would or even\nmight cause harm are perfectly welcome, especially if details and\nexamples can be provided. (In fact, it would be a lot more helpful\nthan simply asserting that the change would be very harmful.) Name\ncalling is not okay.\n\nEmails like this one from you are not wanted and not welcome within\nthis project. Please go read the project's Code of Conduct\n(https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/tree/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)\nand only continue to communicate with this project in ways that are in\nalignment with that code.\n\nElijah\n"},{"id":"399938","messageId":"20200616210701.22924-1-zeevriend@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006091126540.482@ZVAVAG-DN14RQO.ybpnyqbznva","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"ZeeVriend","fromEmail":"zeevriend@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-16T21:07:01Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-16T21:07:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"zeevriend@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"From: zeevriend@gmail.com\n\nFirst I want to thank you for the time. I think the change is good and discussion about inclusive really necessary.\nLet me tell you I have Congolese ancestry. Today I develop in Brussels, Belgium - the irony you see, is not :-)\nSecond let me tell you the new master name 'main' is not so good chosen. In french 'main' LITERALLY means 'hand'. The recent\nhistory in Congo will explain why this is bad. Not long ago slaves in Congo because of Belgian rulers. Very sad history, because\nhands were cut off! Many Africans today still have family from then. My grandparents can tell me horrible stories when I visit :-(\nI think you can see now why 'hand' or 'main' is very offensive to us. I can tell you, for French Africans this is MORE offensive\nthan 'master'! Because this reason, we do not want to be reminded of hands while using git.\nThird I can suggest 2 more neutral alternatives. First one is 'default', which has almost same meaning in French. Second alternative\nis 'zero' or 'branch0'. I like this one more, because it has an exact same meaning in French! Also it is very neutral and programmers\nfrom all the world can agree on this, we all start counting at 0! ;-)\n\nThanks for the time and considerations! And excuse for the level of English. I hope you have good days next, healthy and stay to\nfight for the good causes!\n"},{"id":"399948","messageId":"CAFZPMobx0grpMjdJSbYmre_SRu1OuC1rANZVdpkfohK4jXDqrQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CABPp-BGV-CVZ5swYNQpF-su3+yc1=P96g-tKxKtcrgvxhA+AYA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sergey Lapin","fromEmail":"slapinid@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-17T01:17:26Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T01:17:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"slapinid@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Yes, that is why CoCs are implemented - to shut up everyone and do the\nright thing.\nCongratulations on your winning. There is nothing else to show what\nthe state people are in.\nPlease get well.\n\nOn Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:37 PM Elijah Newren wrote:\n>\n> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:39 AM Oleg wrote:\n> >\n> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:31:43AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> > > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 08:35, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> > > > But to deny that explosive content on the basis that you don't\n> > > > personally feel it, that you've never experienced it? To claim that it\n> > > > is \"meaningless\", that some people are \"perpetually offended\"? That's\n> > > > willful ignorance on your part, a bad-faith effort to engage in\n> > > > serious intellectual conversation about what is good and right, and\n> > > > has no place in a discussion about creating an inclusive space for all\n> > > > developers, let alone trying to bring about a more just world.\n> > >\n> > > Well said sir. I might quote that sometime.\n>\n> ...\n> > The stupid idea.\n> > The stupid discussion.\n> > All world use this terminology and it disturb nobody with sane mind.\n> ...\n> > Because someone is completely mad...\n> > Fucking hypocrites.\n> > Are you all really so stupid?\n> > Just do it and feel better, liers.\n>\n> Please stop. Bringing up reasons why proposed changes would or even\n> might cause harm are perfectly welcome, especially if details and\n> examples can be provided. (In fact, it would be a lot more helpful\n> than simply asserting that the change would be very harmful.) Name\n> calling is not okay.\n>\n> Emails like this one from you are not wanted and not welcome within\n> this project. Please go read the project's Code of Conduct\n> (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/tree/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)\n> and only continue to communicate with this project in ways that are in\n> alignment with that code.\n>\n> Elijah\n"},{"id":"399951","messageId":"87lfkm9mob.fsf@osv.gnss.ru","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"1109121592306913@mail.yandex.ru","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Sergey Organov","fromEmail":"sorganov@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-17T07:27:48Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T07:27:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sorganov@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8501568?v=4"},"body":"Konstantin Tokarev writes:\n\n> 16.06.2020, 13:31, \"Alex Smith\" :\n>> Whether or not any patch would be accepted, the damage is already done.\n>> From now on, people will judge you if you dare to use the name\n>> \"master\" anywhere\n>> and this is incredibly sad. These people are literally bullying us into\n>> submission in the name of political correctness where no harm was actually\n>> done.\n>>\n>> This sickens me.\n>\n> I guess their next move might be to force sound engineers to rename\n> master channel and derived term \"mastering\" into something more\n> politically correct.\n\nThere is even better target:\n\n$ cd src/linux\n$ find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep -i '(master)\\|(slave)' | wc -l\n40506\n\n... and then they'll finally be on the right track to win the war\nagainst it.\n\n-- Sergey\n"},{"id":"399954","messageId":"20200617074521.GA18445@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CABPp-BGV-CVZ5swYNQpF-su3+yc1=P96g-tKxKtcrgvxhA+AYA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-17T07:45:21Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T07:43:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:33:18PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:\n> Please stop.\n\nok, but what do you talk about, Elijah? Here ault men talk about serious\nthings. If you have something to say on the topic, you are welcome. You can do\nit in any form - we will try to understand you. Otherwise, please don't waste\nour time. The ethics club is elsewhere.\n\n> Bringing up reasons why proposed changes would or even\n> might cause harm are perfectly welcome, especially if details and\n> examples can be provided. (In fact, it would be a lot more helpful\n> than simply asserting that the change would be very harmful.) Name\n\nElijah, it would be a lot more helpful if you read the thread. Here\nnot only me already wrote about various reasons why this change is bad.\nAnd we didn't see at least one technical reason why this is good.\nJust politics speaches.\n\nTwo really important reasons:\n\n1. This setting need to *very-very small* count of people.\n2. The future default value of this setting will break *many* projects and\n people stable workflow.\n \nSo, why we need this? Because now one country have some *internal* troubles\n(this is sad, but the code isn't to blame for this)? And why the whole world\nneed to suffer from this situation? I think some people here don't understand\nthe moment. Don't understand the consequences. This project is not your\npersonal project, Elijah. It isn't even american. Why billions of people\nshould to suffer? Because of white american's chauvinism? I think some people\nhere don't understand the responsibility to the world for their actions.\n\nIf anybody is intrested in git users opinion(not github PR-man or PR-man of\nany other monster company), then he can simply read it here:\n\nhttps://www.change.org/p/github-do-not-rename-the-default-branch-from-master-to-main\n\n> Emails like this one from you are not wanted and not welcome within\n> this project. Please go read the project's Code of Conduct\n> (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/tree/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)\n\nElijah, my english is bad, i can't understand this document. Sorry. I think\nthis is a discrimination of non-english speakers. Why no translations?\n\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"399955","messageId":"20200617074940.GB18445@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200616210701.22924-1-zeevriend@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-17T07:49:40Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T07:48:02Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:07:01PM +0200, ZeeVriend wrote:\n> First I want to thank you for the time. I think the change is good and discussion about inclusive really necessary.\n> Let me tell you I have Congolese ancestry. Today I develop in Brussels, Belgium - the irony you see, is not :-)\n> Second let me tell you the new master name 'main' is not so good chosen. In french 'main' LITERALLY means 'hand'. The recent\n> history in Congo will explain why this is bad. Not long ago slaves in Congo because of Belgian rulers. Very sad history, because\n> hands were cut off! Many Africans today still have family from then. My grandparents can tell me horrible stories when I visit :-(\n> I think you can see now why 'hand' or 'main' is very offensive to us. I can tell you, for French Africans this is MORE offensive\n> than 'master'! Because this reason, we do not want to be reminded of hands while using git.\n> Third I can suggest 2 more neutral alternatives. First one is 'default', which has almost same meaning in French. Second alternative\n> is 'zero' or 'branch0'. I like this one more, because it has an exact same meaning in French! Also it is very neutral and programmers\n\nNo-no. Please. \"branch\" is sounds bad for cyrillic hear and has bad\nassociations. Like a \"брань\". \"zero\" is like a \"nothing\" or \"looser\".\n\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"399958","messageId":"20200617082747.GL21462@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAGA3LAfqzBsn91YTYaCT5y9XLeNLY_0B_7b1f3fdc6X4JOU81A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2020-06-17T08:27:47Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T08:27:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 03:58:33PM +0200, Don Goodman-Wilson wrote:\n> > MASTER IS NOT INHERENTLY RELATED TO MASTER-SLAVE RELATIONS.\n> \n> 1) There is a great deal of evidence that that claim is simply not true.\n> https://twitter.com/tobie/status/1270290278029631489\n> https://twitter.com/jpaulreed/status/1272064807345115137\n> \n> 2) It's beside the point. Many problematic words and phrases have\n> perfectly benign origins, but take on new meanings in new contexts.\n> \n> I personally reject the kind of moral relativism that is being\n> espoused here. In fact, I believe that there is such a thing as\n> justice, and that we each have a responsibility to seek it out and\n> create it in every corner of our activities, big and small. You can\n> abdicate that responsibility, I can't force anyone to do otherwise nor\n> would I want to. But history judges harshly those who would throw\n> others aside. Of course there are more people in the world than just\n> Americans. But there are also Americans, and in particular Black\n> Americans. Precisely because git is the tool of choice for open source\nAs far as I know using the word 'black' when referring to people is\nconsidered racist. Of course, it is completely benign word that might\nhave taken on new meanings in new contexts. Last time I heard the\n'politically correct' term was Afro-American. Of course, that might have\nalso taken on new meanings in new contexts I am not aware of.\n\nThe kettle calling the pot black.\n\nOf course, I have also seen patches to remove the occurences of 'black'\nreferring to the constant rgb(0,0,0). The word can be considered racist\nin some circumstances so we have to remove all occurences in all\ncontexts, right?\n\nFortunately the ones I am aware of are not accepted.\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"399992","messageId":"xmqq5zbpv53g.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CANgJU+XzD9Nnnu4qWExpOUBy+u1=23SRCQy-=6aAVFJAowkjYg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-17T19:56:35Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T19:56:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"demerphq writes:\n\n> kind of confusion. Consider how this conversation goes for us:\n>\n> A: \"No you need to fetch trunk from the remote, then you need to merge\n> it to your local trunk and then push it to the master trunk\".\n> B: \"Ok.\"\n\nHmph, why isn't the last one \"trunk trunk\"?\n\n> Similarly when the perl project migrated to git we renamed \"master\" to\n> \"blead\" to reduce the possibility \"master master\" confusion.\n\nOr put it differently, \"your local master? remote master? or the\nprimary master?\" would be a way to state the phrase A asked in the\nexample without renaming the name for the primary branch to 'trunk'.\n\nWhat I am trying to get at is, after changing the name that is given\nby default to the primary branch in a newly created repositories by\n\"git init\" to 'main' (which I am OK with, and it seems that the\nmajor projects and repository hosting services will be doing anyway\nwith or without getting themselves in this discussion on this list),\nwouldn't we risk the same \"master master\" confusion caused by and to\nthose newer users who learn 'main' is the word given to the primary\nthing?\n\nWouldn't you teach your users to fetch 'main' from the remote, merge\nit to the local 'main' and then push it to the 'main' main?\n\n\n"},{"id":"399995","messageId":"20200617201037.GA86579@google.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqq5zbpv53g.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-17T20:10:37Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T20:10:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nJunio C Hamano wrote:\n> demerphq writes:\n\n>> kind of confusion. Consider how this conversation goes for us:\n>>\n>> A: \"No you need to fetch trunk from the remote, then you need to merge\n>> it to your local trunk and then push it to the master trunk\".\n>> B: \"Ok.\"\n>\n> Hmph, why isn't the last one \"trunk trunk\"?\n>\n>> Similarly when the perl project migrated to git we renamed \"master\" to\n>> \"blead\" to reduce the possibility \"master master\" confusion.\n>\n> Or put it differently, \"your local master? remote master? or the\n> primary master?\" would be a way to state the phrase A asked in the\n> example without renaming the name for the primary branch to 'trunk'.\n>\n> What I am trying to get at is, after changing the name that is given\n> by default to the primary branch in a newly created repositories by\n> \"git init\" to 'main' (which I am OK with, and it seems that the\n> major projects and repository hosting services will be doing anyway\n> with or without getting themselves in this discussion on this list),\n> wouldn't we risk the same \"master master\" confusion caused by and to\n> those newer users who learn 'main' is the word given to the primary\n> thing?\n\nI think Yves's point is that when the tool you are building has a\ncomponent named $FOO, it's confusing to also have a branch named $FOO.\n\nSo for example, if we were in the habit of calling main.c 'main' and\nfrequently referring to it, this could be a reason to avoid also using\n'main' as the name of the primary development branch. When someone\nsays \"that's fixed in main\", it could prompt a moment of confusion ---\ndid they mean that there's a fix in main.c, or that the fix has landed\nin the main branch?\n\nIn particular when building distributed systems, historically it has\nbeen common to have one of the components being built be named\n'master'.\n\nFortunately in this context, I haven't heard 'main' used frequently\nthat way. (I suppose it helps that main() functions are often short.)\n\nThanks,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"399997","messageId":"20200617201709.GB86579@google.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200617201037.GA86579@google.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-17T20:17:09Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T20:17:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Jonathan Nieder wrote:\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> demerphq writes:\n\n>>> kind of confusion. Consider how this conversation goes for us:\n>>>\n>>> A: \"No you need to fetch trunk from the remote, then you need to merge\n>>> it to your local trunk and then push it to the master trunk\".\n>>> B: \"Ok.\"\n>>\n>> Hmph, why isn't the last one \"trunk trunk\"?\n[...]\n>> What I am trying to get at is, after changing the name that is given\n>> by default to the primary branch in a newly created repositories by\n>> \"git init\" to 'main' (which I am OK with, and it seems that the\n>> major projects and repository hosting services will be doing anyway\n>> with or without getting themselves in this discussion on this list),\n>> wouldn't we risk the same \"master master\" confusion caused by and to\n>> those newer users who learn 'main' is the word given to the primary\n>> thing?\n>\n> I think Yves's point is that when the tool you are building has a\n> component named $FOO, it's confusing to also have a branch named $FOO.\n[...]\n> In particular when building distributed systems, historically it has\n> been common to have one of the components being built be named\n> 'master'.\n\nOf course I missed the other point --- hostnames like master.\n(e.g., a hypothetical master.kernel.org), refering to the source of\ntruth for something that then gets replicated.\n\nI don't think we're likely to see hostnames like main.kernel.org\nbecause it's just *so generic* as a word.\n\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"400003","messageId":"20200617204842.23344-1-zeevriend@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200617074940.GB18445@legohost","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"ZeeVriend","fromEmail":"zeevriend@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-17T20:48:42Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T20:49:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"zeevriend@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"From: Zee Vriend \n\nDear Oleg,\n\nThanks for your feedback. I have no knowledge from cyrillic so it is nice to hear from you! As a fact, in French \"zero\" also has\nbad meanings. But, positive meaning exist also. Building up from nothing as example I give you.\nNow if my suggestions are not ok we can try something else. I thought alternatives can be \"source\" and \"root\". Both are used A LOT\nby programmers everywhere so possible they all agree! Let me tell you \"source\" has EXACT same meaning in French, I like it a lot.\nWe all write 'source code' is not?\nMaybe you have other words to describe this. We can all share the best words and select the best agreement. A true inclusive collaboration\nfrom all!\nLet me wish you a good day and happy moments next!\n"},{"id":"400004","messageId":"20200617205207.8240-1-zeevriend@gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200617074940.GB18445@legohost","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"ZeeVriend","fromEmail":"zeevriend@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-17T20:52:07Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-17T20:52:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"zeevriend@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"From: Zee Vriend \n\nDear Oleg,\n\nThanks for your feedback. I have no knowledge from cyrillic so it is nice to hear from you! As a fact, in French \"zero\" also has\nbad meanings. But, positive meaning exist also. Building up from nothing as example I give you.\nNow if my suggestions are not ok we can try something else. I thought alternatives can be \"source\" and \"root\". Both are used A LOT\nby programmers everywhere so possible they all agree! Let me tell you \"source\" has EXACT same meaning in French, I like it a lot.\nWe all write 'source code' is not?\nMaybe you have other words to describe this. We can all share the best words and select the best agreement. A true inclusive collaboration\nfrom all!\nLet me wish you a good day and happy moments next!\n"},{"id":"400033","messageId":"CANgJU+Ut+ANPHud1JQw1Wo+zb37_=EWx-vgap6FGC+T=-dzn4A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"xmqq5zbpv53g.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"demerphq","fromEmail":"demerphq@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-18T07:40:37Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-18T07:40:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"demerphq@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 21:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> demerphq writes:\n>\n> > kind of confusion. Consider how this conversation goes for us:\n> >\n> > A: \"No you need to fetch trunk from the remote, then you need to merge\n> > it to your local trunk and then push it to the master trunk\".\n> > B: \"Ok.\"\n>\n> Hmph, why isn't the last one \"trunk trunk\"?\n\nWhat I described was someone pulling from a box they have code on\n(which does not have access to the master repository) to the local\nrepo on their laptop so they can push it to the master repo.\n\nWe have a master repo at $work. We use a mixture of centralized and\ndecentralized dev models. To get your code into production it must hit\nthe master repository, and it must be in the trunk branch in the\nmaster repository. I imagine this is a relatively common\nconfiguration, and problem in a professional context. Eg, I might be\ntesting or debugging code on a node that is not allowed write access\nto the master repo for security reasons, so I need to pull the code\nfrom there to my local workstation and then push from there to the\nmaster repository. And all too often our people don't use topic\nbranches for this stuff and just hack on their local copy of trunk. So\nfrom my point of view what I said was absolutely correct.\n\n> > Similarly when the perl project migrated to git we renamed \"master\" to\n> > \"blead\" to reduce the possibility \"master master\" confusion.\n>\n> Or put it differently, \"your local master? remote master? or the\n> primary master?\" would be a way to state the phrase A asked in the\n> example without renaming the name for the primary branch to 'trunk'.\n\nWell, \"primary\" is not a terrible replacement term for \"master\", but\nit isn't ideal either, as it also suggests the existence of a usable\nsecondary, which isn't a correct mental model (for us). Personally I\nwould eschew \"primary\" when there isn't a \"secondary\".\n\n> What I am trying to get at is, after changing the name that is given\n> by default to the primary branch in a newly created repositories by\n> \"git init\" to 'main' (which I am OK with, and it seems that the\n> major projects and repository hosting services will be doing anyway\n> with or without getting themselves in this discussion on this list),\n> wouldn't we risk the same \"master master\" confusion caused by and to\n> those newer users who learn 'main' is the word given to the primary\n> thing?\n\nYeah I think it will still cause problems. If it was my call I would\nnot choose \"main\" either. Having said that I do think it is a bit\nbetter than \"master\" however, as it leaves the term \"master\"\nunambiguously about repositories, and it leaves the term \"main\"\nunambiguously about branches.\n\nAlso I would argue it is more etymologically correct. I would argue\nthat the \"master\" branch in git terminology is NOT really the \"master\"\nunless it is in the \"master\" repository. \"master\" in the content of\n\"master copy\" implies \"one\" (it has to, what do you do if you have two\nmasters and they aren't the same!), but using it in a distributed\nsense for a branch name doesn't imply one, it implies many, so it\nreally doesn't make a lot of sense.\n\n> Wouldn't you teach your users to fetch 'main' from the remote, merge\n> it to the local 'main' and then push it to the 'main' main?\n\nUnfortunately we call our main repo \"main.git\", so for my workplace\n\"main\" as a default branch name would be suboptimal. We chose \"trunk\"\nbecause \"main\", \"master\", \"primary\" all have these double meanings. On\nthe other hand \"trunk\" is the standard word for the things that\nbranches grow out of, and in some trees, the branches even can merge\nback into the trunk![1] Thus I find it weird it isn't perceived as the\n\"obvious\" choice to solve this problem. That the bulk of the\npopulation chose \"main\" suggests to me a lack of imagination more than\na reasoned and thought through decision.\n\nAnyway, personally I would say \"main\" and \"master\" are both bad\nchoices for the default *branch* in a tool that is as workflow\nagnostic as git is and seems to intend to be. It is relatively\nunfriendly to scenarios where there is in fact a \"main repo\" or\n\"master repo\" . Many people will in practice use git in a relatively\ncentralized way with at least one repo designated the \"main\" or\n\"master\" repo for the project, and so you end up with two \"master\" or\ntwo \"main\" things that are very different with very different\nproperties.\n\nSo yeah, I would say that \"main\" is slightly better than \"master\" but\nis still suboptimal from a comprehension point of view, and it is\ndownright unhelpful for my $workplace (but I recognize that isn't a\nproblem you should be considering in this discussion.)\n\nThank you for your time and efforts in dealing with this subject.\n\ncheers,\nYves\n[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/25xkg2/a_tree_branch_grows_back_into_the_tree/\n\n-- \nperl -Mre=debug -e \"/just|another|perl|hacker/\"\n"},{"id":"400034","messageId":"CANgJU+WbPgSTxQ=G3sFSvNFQ1cL3onYk5yKLBR=3AqWeEUCfZQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200617201709.GB86579@google.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"demerphq","fromEmail":"demerphq@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-18T07:57:42Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-18T07:57:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"demerphq@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 22:17, Jonathan Nieder wrote:\n>\n> Jonathan Nieder wrote:\n> > Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> >> demerphq writes:\n>\n> >>> kind of confusion. Consider how this conversation goes for us:\n> >>>\n> >>> A: \"No you need to fetch trunk from the remote, then you need to merge\n> >>> it to your local trunk and then push it to the master trunk\".\n> >>> B: \"Ok.\"\n> >>\n> >> Hmph, why isn't the last one \"trunk trunk\"?\n> [...]\n> >> What I am trying to get at is, after changing the name that is given\n> >> by default to the primary branch in a newly created repositories by\n> >> \"git init\" to 'main' (which I am OK with, and it seems that the\n> >> major projects and repository hosting services will be doing anyway\n> >> with or without getting themselves in this discussion on this list),\n> >> wouldn't we risk the same \"master master\" confusion caused by and to\n> >> those newer users who learn 'main' is the word given to the primary\n> >> thing?\n> >\n> > I think Yves's point is that when the tool you are building has a\n> > component named $FOO, it's confusing to also have a branch named $FOO.\n> [...]\n> > In particular when building distributed systems, historically it has\n> > been common to have one of the components being built be named\n> > 'master'.\n>\n> Of course I missed the other point --- hostnames like master.\n> (e.g., a hypothetical master.kernel.org), refering to the source of\n> truth for something that then gets replicated.\n>\n> I don't think we're likely to see hostnames like main.kernel.org\n> because it's just *so generic* as a word.\n\nYep, you summarized my point well. I would say master.kernel.org is a\ncorrect use of the term \"master copy\", and the use in the branch name\nis simply not. My \"master branch\" for git.git is NOT *the* master. It\ndoesn't make sense to call something \"master\" and say it means \"master\ncopy\" when there are actually multiple copies of the master. That\nisn't what \"master copy\" means.\n\nSo I would say that since in practice very often there will exist a\nrepo which is considered to be *the* master copy of the repo having\n\"master\" as a default branch name is unhelpful.\n\nAnd as you say \"main\" does not have this problem to quite the same\nextent. Although frankly I could see \"main\" being a common term in\nmore distributed development processes where there might not be the\nsame concept of a \"master\" repo, but there might be a \"main\" repo\nwhere people commonly share their work.\n\nUltimately if I was the decision maker here I would be choosing terms\nthat are as workflow agnostic as I can find. \"main\", \"master\" and\n\"primary\" are not workflow agnostic, they are if anything a bit\nworkflow opinionated. \"trunk\" on the other hand seems pretty\nself-descriptive and doesn't have much baggage. It's bark is worse\nthan its byte however. :-)\n\ncheers,\nYves\n\n\n-- \nperl -Mre=debug -e \"/just|another|perl|hacker/\"\n"},{"id":"400037","messageId":"20200618082857.GA20837@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200617204842.23344-1-zeevriend@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-18T08:28:57Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-18T08:27:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:48:42PM +0200, ZeeVriend wrote:\n> Thanks for your feedback. I have no knowledge from cyrillic so it is nice to hear from you! As a fact, in French \"zero\" also has\n> bad meanings. But, positive meaning exist also. Building up from nothing as example I give you.\n\nA positive meaning exist for any word ;-).\n\n> Now if my suggestions are not ok we can try something else. I thought alternatives can be \"source\" and \"root\". Both are used A LOT\n> by programmers everywhere so possible they all agree! Let me tell you \"source\" has EXACT same meaning in French, I like it a lot.\n> We all write 'source code' is not?\n\nNot all of us :-). Somebody try to play in politics games, instead of coding.\n\n> Maybe you have other words to describe this. We can all share the best words and select the best agreement. A true inclusive collaboration\n> from all!\n\nYes, i have one - \"master\". It's used about 15 years by millions of developers\nand projects. I think this is a best portfolio ever. Other words we are\ndiscussing already show drawbacks. We have no one ideal word :-). In any case,\nthis is not matter. Nor my or you opinion. There are some white people with\nconscience problems and they try to solve it in such a strange way. After that,\nthey willn't become better, but they think they will. Code and the rest of\nhumanity just victims in this situation.\n\n> Let me wish you a good day and happy moments next!\n\nThanks. But i don't see any happy moments here.\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"400038","messageId":"20200618083825.GB20837@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CANgJU+WbPgSTxQ=G3sFSvNFQ1cL3onYk5yKLBR=3AqWeEUCfZQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-18T08:38:25Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-18T08:36:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:57:42AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> Ultimately if I was the decision maker here I would be choosing terms\n> that are as workflow agnostic as I can find. \"main\", \"master\" and\n> \"primary\" are not workflow agnostic, they are if anything a bit\n> workflow opinionated. \"trunk\" on the other hand seems pretty\n> self-descriptive and doesn't have much baggage. It's bark is worse\n> than its byte however. :-)\n\nThe most workflow agnostic name is \"branch\". it is so neutral that you want to\nchange it ASAP :-).\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"400049","messageId":"CANgJU+WFEC_Z9mUF5NLq5FD_YL1Y9+Z5hGXi0M30p1nehBL94A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200618083825.GB20837@legohost","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"demerphq","fromEmail":"demerphq@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-18T10:17:04Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-18T10:17:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"demerphq@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 11:57, Oleg wrote:\n>\n> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:57:42AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> > Ultimately if I was the decision maker here I would be choosing terms\n> > that are as workflow agnostic as I can find. \"main\", \"master\" and\n> > \"primary\" are not workflow agnostic, they are if anything a bit\n> > workflow opinionated. \"trunk\" on the other hand seems pretty\n> > self-descriptive and doesn't have much baggage. It's bark is worse\n> > than its byte however. :-)\n>\n> The most workflow agnostic name is \"branch\". it is so neutral that you want to\n> change it ASAP :-).\n\nI suppose I should have said \"least confusing/ambiguous while most\nworkflow agnostic\". :-)\n\nYves\n\n\n-- \nperl -Mre=debug -e \"/just|another|perl|hacker/\"\n"},{"id":"400061","messageId":"20200618152300.cw7teo2jmxyfsl2l@chatter.i7.local","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CANgJU+WbPgSTxQ=G3sFSvNFQ1cL3onYk5yKLBR=3AqWeEUCfZQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Konstantin Ryabitsev","fromEmail":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","sentAt":"2020-06-18T15:23:00Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-18T15:23:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"konstantin@linuxfoundation.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/7cb8827c6de56e1bd2dea16508c6708aa43feed3bf3813bcdacecdf96ceadd79?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:57:42AM +0200, demerphq wrote:\n> > Of course I missed the other point --- hostnames like master.\n> > (e.g., a hypothetical master.kernel.org), refering to the source of\n> > truth for something that then gets replicated.\n> >\n> > I don't think we're likely to see hostnames like main.kernel.org\n> > because it's just *so generic* as a word.\n> \n> Yep, you summarized my point well. I would say master.kernel.org is a\n> correct use of the term \"master copy\", and the use in the branch name\n> is simply not. My \"master branch\" for git.git is NOT *the* master.\n\nThis is actually an important philosophical point with software like \ngit. There is no such thing as master.kernel.org for the very specific \nreason that we position kernel.org to be merely a convenient place where \nto get a *copy* of Linux. The \"master copy\" of the mainline tree exists \nonly in once place -- on Linus's computer.\n\n-K\n"},{"id":"400070","messageId":"xmqq1rmcp7wn.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CANgJU+Ut+ANPHud1JQw1Wo+zb37_=EWx-vgap6FGC+T=-dzn4A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-06-18T18:04:40Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-18T18:04:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"demerphq writes:\n\n>> What I am trying to get at is, after changing the name that is given\n>> by default to the primary branch in a newly created repositories by\n>> \"git init\" to 'main' (which I am OK with, and it seems that the\n>> major projects and repository hosting services will be doing anyway\n>> with or without getting themselves in this discussion on this list),\n>> wouldn't we risk the same \"master master\" confusion caused by and to\n>> those newer users who learn 'main' is the word given to the primary\n>> thing?\n>\n> Yeah I think it will still cause problems. If it was my call I would\n> not choose \"main\" either. Having said that I do think it is a bit\n> better than \"master\" however, as it leaves the term \"master\"\n> unambiguously about repositories, and it leaves the term \"main\"\n> unambiguously about branches.\n\nWell, 'main' is clearly better than 'master' as there do not seem to\nbe so many haters of the former than the latter.\n\nBut you cannot escape from the fact that when you need to have one\nspecial/primary repository among different ones, and each repository\nhas one special/primary branch among different branches (and you are\nlucky that you have to only worry about two levels in this case), it\nis inevitable that you risk the \"master master\" problem no matter\nwhat, unless you choose different word for 'primary' at each level.\n\nIt may be that it is the default _branch_ name people are unhappy\nabout the use of word 'master', but I do not see the reason why\npeople would not be unhappy about your reference to the 'master'\nrepository of a project the same way. So basing your argument to\nrename the default _branch_ to 'main' (or any word that is not\n'master') because of \"master master\" problem does not compute well,\nwhich was my point. 'main' is not better than 'master' because you\nwant to keep using 'master' to refer to your primary repository.\n\n> So yeah, I would say that \"main\" is slightly better than \"master\" but\n> is still suboptimal from a comprehension point of view, and it is\n> downright unhelpful for my $workplace (but I recognize that isn't a\n> problem you should be considering in this discussion.)\n"},{"id":"400270","messageId":"20200621195023.3881634-1-lkcl@lkcl.net","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Social Justice Movements [was: Rename offensive terminology (master)]","fromName":"Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton","fromEmail":"lkcl@lkcl.net","sentAt":"2020-06-21T19:50:23Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-21T20:14:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lkcl@lkcl.net","avatar":null},"body":"From: lkcl@lkcl.net\n\n> From: Simon Pieters @ 2020-05-04 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)\n> To: git\n> \n> \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> slavery-origin terminology. See\n\nsimon,\n\nsadly i regret to inform you that both the subject line that you've\nused, and the assertion that you make - that \"master\" is automatically\nan inherently offensive term - is what a lawyer would call \"leading\nthe witness\". it is a false correlation and unfortunately nobody\nhas picked up on this in a significant way.\n\nit would have been far better and much less problematic not to have\nmade any false language-based assumptions as the *fundamental basis*\nfor this entire conversation, by using, for example, the following\nneutral and objective words:\n\n \"some people may believe that there is an implication - false or\n otherwise - that the use of the word master in git implies a\n corresponding association with slavery. whilst i appreciate that\n this is a technical list, in light of today's current social\n climate i would welcome open and honest discussion on this subject\"\n\ndo you see the difference? instead of indicating that you respect\nthat this is a technical list, and *invite* people to discuss it,\nyou opened with a *demand*, backed up by not one but *two* false\ncorrelative assertions: one in the subject and the second in the\nopening sentence, which has proven difficult for people to unpack.\n\ni notice also in follow-ups that you also use similar language and make\nsimilar assumptions, which _are_ picked up on and found to themselves\nbe *offensive by readers*. in light of the topic being to change\nthe use of an offensive word, this is highly ironic! (i am delighted\nto then see that you apologised and indicate that this was in no\nway intentional).\n\nmy observation is however that you have a pattern of this type of\nfalse-correlative language usage that you may wish to examine more\nclosely, in order to not mislead or offend others. do not think\nthat you are alone in this! we all do it, myself included,\nunintentionally. our strength of character is in how we react\nwhen it is *pointed out* to us our mistakes, and it is a hugely\npositive sign to see that you are well-intended and wish not to\ncause offense to others.\n\nwe have also engaged in a discussion on our list, provided some insights\ninto this topic. as an ethical technology advocate with a responsibility\nand a duty to consider the full implications of the use of my skill,\ni have been thinking about this \"political movement\" to change the\nlandscape of engineering terminology for some years.\n\nsummary: it's not a good sign.\n\ninterestingly, one of our team members opened the discussion with\na similarly loaded question:\nhttp://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-June/008259.html\n\n \"should we avoid the association with slavery?\"\n\nwhich is again a highly loaded / charged / false-correlative question\n(that i immediately picked up on).\n\nthe first follow-up simply pointed out that there are a huge number\nof alternative overload meanings for the word \"master\":\nhttp://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-June/008263.html\n\n Record-master\n Film-master\n Tape-master\n Digital-master\n\n Master (as in teacher)\n\nfollowups on this include document management commonly-used phrases:\n\n Master copy\n Master document\n Master Bill of Materials\n\ndo you notice that *at no time* is there *any* association in any one's\nmind with \"slavery\"? nobody gets offended in Eastern countries when\nthey meet a \"Master\"! it is a word of *deep* respect!\n\nanother follow-up goes into detail about the critical importance of\nthe use of the words \"master\" and \"slave\" from an engineering\nperspective (we are implementing a processor: the Wishbone Specification\nfor example *has* to use the terms) as well as providing further insights:\nhttp://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-June/008264.html\n\n the engineering meaning of master and slave is as follows:\n\n * master specifies unequivocably the action required. this is\n an atomic contract\n\n * slave carries out that action unequivocably and atomically.\n\n in other words it is an atomically guaranteed 100 percent\n inviolate and 100% accurate transferrance of *information* from\n one source to another.\n\n any violation of that contract has such severe consequences in\n engineering (catastrophic data loss in the case of git, and loss\n of life in the case of mission critical real time control systems)\n that to consider anything other than this type of contract is\n unthinkable and flat-out impractical.\n\nthis reply also points out that the current motivation for changing the\nmeaning of the word is, sadly, for the purposes of \"Social Justice\"\nthat have at their heart a guilt-ridden desire to forget history\nby eradicating words from common usage, with complete disregard for the\nfact that the word has multiple meanings. the \"if you're not with\nus you're against us\" false-correlative argument that has caused untold\nmisery and strife throughout human history.\n\nthis then led another of our team, who has a degree in Liberal Studies\nand Literature, specialising in the study of slavery, to write about\nthe dismaying ongoing inversion and distortion of ethical and liberal\nmovements:\nhttp://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-June/008277.html\n\nhe points out in particular that the current \"Social Justice\" movement\nhas all the hallmarks of a modern-day religion!\n\nhttps://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/postmodern-religion-faith-social-justice/\n\nso i leave that with you to consider, and the observation that i am\nwitnessing a huge amount of guilt and deep-seated unease over this topic,\nwhich is perfectly understandable and we - all of us - need to feel\ncomfortable being able to express that unease in a public way (being\npart of an open movement after all), and to feel that we are being heard\nand respected.\n\nyet... at the same time recognising that this is *engineering terminology*,\nfor which, due to ongoing legacy usage, a substitute word would cause far\nmore harm than allowing the continuing use of that word. further, that in\nan *engineering context* and in other contexts, that word simply does\nnot have or cause offense in any way except in the minds of those\nwho - and this is a whole new subject - *choose to be victims*, and in\nsome contexts its usage is a deep and fundamental sign of respect!\n\nin short: i invite everyone here to consider whether to choose to\n\"react\" to the Social Justice Movement / Religion - (become mired and\nvictimised by it), and instead to focus on continuing to apply their\nsuperb engineering skills to develop technically excellent code, whilst\nat the same time remembering at all times to be deeply respectful and\nconscious of the fact that people *are* going to raise these and many\nother Social Justice style topics on public technical mailing lists,\nand to give such people the space they need whilst also reminding\nthem of the core goals of the project on which they have brought up\nthat Social Justice topic.\n\nrespectfully,\n\nl.\n\n"},{"id":"400471","messageId":"CAAOnFsNUB_+NZMGnu2yasL8tk_KTfqPY6JiHOpvYHiyY_Lytrw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Gunnar Liljas","fromEmail":"gunnar.liljas@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-23T23:21:32Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-23T23:21:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gunnar.liljas@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/2d8a14c7e83a31799e96e102ed854886a075621d10e3f0ac3eb4732fffec716c?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"First of all, I offer my excuses for inserting myself into this\ndiscussion as an outsider. It will probably seem a little laughable or\nsad that someone would feel the need to do that just to vent their\nfrustrations outside the public social media platforms.\nHowever, I want to add mainly one thing, that has been completely\nabsent from discussions elsewhere (it has been hinted here, recently).\n\nFirst, I will state my position, so that the actual argument can be\nput into the context of where I'm coming from (or maybe just because I\nwanted to vent some more...)\n\n- Giving users an option is a good thing.\n- Solid conventions that are rarely overridden is also a good thing.\n- Moving away from \"master\" may be the right thing to do, but there\nare certain ramifications (also optical) to such things, so the\nreasoning should be informed.\n- \"Tagging\" certain words as offensive or non-inclusive can be a\ndisservice to a working, sensible, constructive, emotional,\ninformational and nuanced language. At least when said word, in its\ncontext, is used completely without its possible negative\nconnotations. It creates an emotion and a problem where there was\nnone.\n- The actual origin of the word in git is irrelevant. How it's used is\nwhat matters.\n- The \"perpetually offended\" may be a moniker that's a bit too lazy.\nBut I would argue that there is at least a large group that could be\ncalled the \"eager to be offended, by proxy\"\n\nSo, my argument.\n\nWhy is no-one talking or listening (!) to those who are assumed to be\noffended or hurt? That may be a false assumption, but it's certainly\nhow it seems. I can only speak from my limited viewpoint, and for the\nsake of argument, let's say that we're talking about black people, or\nto narrow it down, black software developers.\nIs that too exclusive? Well, maybe, but it's the scope I'm using now,\nand I think my argument would remain unless we include the\nnot-assumed-to-be-affected-but-still-uncomfortable.\n\nI tried to get an idea of how the GitHub move was actually received by\nblack developers (I'm white, by the way), by googling and searching on\nFacebook and Twitter. And I really didn’t taint my searches with my\nbias (e.g “black developer github master”). The impression I came away\nwith was that 100% would rank the move somewhere between unnecessary,\nvia laughable, to downright offensive. The move. Not the word.\nThe voices I found are not necessarily representative, but they should\nat least give some pause. A common reaction seems to be something like\nwhat @SpeedKicks (a software engineer in the \"target group\") tweeted:\n\n\"Reading a thread of white people, including the CEO of GitHub,\nadvocating changing the name of the ‘Master’ branch to make black devs\nmore comfortable...\n\nis the most racially uncomfortable I've ever felt about GitHub.\"\n\nActing on the uninformed assumption about someone else's feelings can\nbe very counter-productive, belittling and even racist.\n\nThis leads to my last bullet points.\n\n- Staying with the word \"master\" can if motivated properly (or not at\nall, since it seems to be a reaction to an ambient issue), be an\naction that is even more grown-up, respectful and therefore inclusive,\nthan moving away from it.\n- Can someone still be offended? Sure, but I think the solution to\neducate, rather than eradicate, should be used more often.\n\nBest regards\nGunnar\n\n\n\nDen mån 4 maj 2020 kl 19:20 skrev Simon Pieters :\n>\n> \"master\" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being\n> slavery-origin terminology. See\n> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns\n>\n> The Python programming language, and various other projects, have\n> taken a stance and moved away from offensive terminology including\n> \"master\". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605\n>\n> When different projects using git decide to move away from \"master\" as\n> the name of their main branch, inconsistency ensues between projects.\n> See https://github.com/desktop/desktop/issues/6478 (and \"Related\n> Issues and Projects\").\n>\n> To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I\n> think git should use a different branch name than \"master\" when\n> initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like \"main\"\n> since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter.\n>\n> --\n> Simon Pieters\n> Bocoup https://bocoup.com/\n>\n>\n"},{"id":"400481","messageId":"fbf1321f-c7e0-976d-c62e-36089e675bf7@whinis.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAAOnFsNUB_+NZMGnu2yasL8tk_KTfqPY6JiHOpvYHiyY_Lytrw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Whinis","fromEmail":"whinis@whinis.com","sentAt":"2020-06-24T01:16:40Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T01:14:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"whinis@whinis.com","avatar":null},"body":"Excellent post but I think your post also missed one other possible \ndownside. Excluding developers afraid of politics becoming more \nimportant than technical development in projects just as many developers \ndid and left python after their change.\n\n"},{"id":"400490","messageId":"20200624081907.GA32753@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAAOnFsNUB_+NZMGnu2yasL8tk_KTfqPY6JiHOpvYHiyY_Lytrw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-24T08:19:35Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-24T08:17:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 01:21:32AM +0200, Gunnar Liljas wrote:\n> at least give some pause. A common reaction seems to be something like\n> what @SpeedKicks (a software engineer in the \"target group\") tweeted:\n> \n> \"Reading a thread of white people, including the CEO of GitHub,\n> advocating changing the name of the ‘Master’ branch to make black devs\n> more comfortable...\n> \n> is the most racially uncomfortable I've ever felt about GitHub.\"\n\nYes. That's sad. This is the real problem. Devs of some projects, whether\nthey understand this or not, work as provocateurs and incite hatred between\npeople. Their actions hurt black people. After that, black people will\nfeel that almost everyone hates them(because it was done \"for them\"). But i\ndon't think devs are so evil. They are just computer nerds/geeks and complete\nidiots in social sphere. They don't understand the consequences of their\nactions and just a toy in politics game.\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"},{"id":"400667","messageId":"CAAOnFsM9cruRPV9mNgu=ANk+5xG6Q77S6pW+ZBQJOZewjw0yiQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"20200624081907.GA32753@legohost","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Gunnar Liljas","fromEmail":"gunnar.liljas@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-06-26T10:08:30Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-26T10:08:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gunnar.liljas@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/2d8a14c7e83a31799e96e102ed854886a075621d10e3f0ac3eb4732fffec716c?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:19 AM wrote:\n> Yes. That's sad. This is the real problem. Devs of some projects, whether\n> they understand this or not, work as provocateurs and incite hatred between\n> people. Their actions hurt black people. After that, black people will\n> feel that almost everyone hates them(because it was done \"for them\").\n\nI don't think many would feel that. More like that everyone ignores\nthem and their opinions. But that's just the thing, I can't and\nshouldn't presume to know what others are thinking and feeling. If an\naction is to be taken, I should at the very least do my best to\nacquire this knowledge.\n\n/Gunnar\n"},{"id":"400669","messageId":"20200626103427.GA28732@legohost","threadId":"53390","inReplyTo":"CAAOnFsM9cruRPV9mNgu=ANk+5xG6Q77S6pW+ZBQJOZewjw0yiQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)","fromName":"Oleg","fromEmail":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","sentAt":"2020-06-26T10:34:27Z","receivedAt":"2020-06-26T10:32:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"lego_12239@rambler.ru","avatar":null},"body":"On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:08:30PM +0200, Gunnar Liljas wrote:\n> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:19 AM wrote:\n> > Yes. That's sad. This is the real problem. Devs of some projects, whether\n> > they understand this or not, work as provocateurs and incite hatred between\n> > people. Their actions hurt black people. After that, black people will\n> > feel that almost everyone hates them(because it was done \"for them\").\n> \n> I don't think many would feel that. More like that everyone ignores\n\nAlmost all of adequate people. What else they should think? In situation where\ndevs, instead of stay away from hype, say to millions: \"we will broke program\nyou use, because of them\". And every adequate people understand that this is\nstupid action(any man with any skin color), but only black people is the\ndeclared \"cause\" of this actions. Naturally, they do not feel comfortable.\n\n\n-- \nОлег Неманов (Oleg Nemanov)\n"}]}