From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bird.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (bird.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.17]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21DBA3858D20 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 05:07:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 21DBA3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gotplt.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gotplt.org X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF5E821305; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 05:07:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a307.dreamhost.com (unknown [127.0.0.6]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 53A9A82162A; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 05:07:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a307.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by 100.121.92.88 (trex/6.4.3); Tue, 01 Feb 2022 05:07:33 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Plucky-Shelf: 5a0833042b33b6e5_1643692053572_2837323762 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1643692053572:3508356546 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1643692053572 Received: from [192.168.1.174] (unknown [1.186.122.255]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: siddhesh@gotplt.org) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a307.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4JntDs00hsz2q; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 21:05:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gotplt.org; s=gotplt.org; t=1643692053; bh=5LAyQDGI6uAJ4j4nx3tqSOhi11w=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=C9uB93upgX41oUiMKE2Bsr7b4PSdzA1hrJxptOAXwtCQIm3YVGvKg3z2ZsTGBPg6X G/YDjkQ15HXHDdLiXtPVdQeC4fEN0Zt4fYcD0XE4gMlIBeCu80czO0sQlQhsc09VoU gfN56d8tjK+WSqHNMb4ohFiZwDGelOLF1oylKwDg= Message-ID: <70889c7c-2e8c-a5d2-3a03-4fa9d013dab4@gotplt.org> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 10:35:27 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Subject: Re: Rename "master" branch to "main" for glibc 2.35 release. Content-Language: en-US To: DJ Delorie Cc: adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org, fweimer@redhat.com, jakub@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, schwab@suse.de, joseph@codesourcery.com, maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org References: From: Siddhesh Poyarekar In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3030.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, RCVD_IN_SBL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 05:07:37 -0000 On 01/02/2022 09:14, DJ Delorie wrote: > Siddhesh Poyarekar writes: >> So the idea of trying to eliminate a word or idea from popular >> vocabulary is not exactly new, we humans do it all the time. > > But there are plenty of examples of words changing for the better, too. > Who doesn't want to master their fears? Who isn't a slave to ambition? > Even POSIX doesn't stay the same forever... Words don't change, new meanings get added in, often making differences murkier. Take 'fuck' for example; the word has so many meanings but it has an underlying flavour that implies a level and type of aggression that not many are comfortable with expressing openly. > But this is neither here nor there; it's our decision in this case, and > we should make it based on our reasons, not just because someone else > told us to do it. And we can do it the way we want to, in a way which > is best for our users and community, which is why my only real > opposition is to invalidating old documentation, when keeping it working > is a trivial thing. Agreed, I think that's a point (or at least similar) that Joseph raised too; there's no strong reason to break links right away, especially for a project that has kept libio untouched for fear of breaking programs built with gcc 2.95. Siddhesh