Re: Rename "master" branch to "main" for glibc 2.35 release.

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>]

On 31/01/2022 17:15, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 31/01/2022 23:39, Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> I must say that I am failing to see any technical advantage or improvement
>> of doing this change.
>>
> 
> There's no technical advantage because it is not a technical issue to begin with.  In fact, rejecting the suggestion saying that there's no technical advantage sends the unsaid message that we don't care enough to give this social issue any more serious thought than trying to glean technical merit from it.
> 
> I personally have no lived experience about the master/slave nomenclature since I'm not from the USA and I'm not African/African-American.  I don't think we have any regular African or African-American contributors either who could share their experiences about how (or if) the nomenclature affects them.  We're a mostly white community with smidges of Asian for flavour, albeit geographically very diverse (perhaps our relative ignorance/indifference towards this mostly-American origin movement is because of the latter) so I don't think any of us can reasonably speak to this.
> 
> My personal impression is that mentorship/paid programs would do far more good than renaming things, but it's just that, a third person impression with no lived experience in that context.  Besides, why not both?> 
> This is a social issue, so maybe it makes more sense to look at the social advantages and/or disadvantages of making (or not) the change and not focus so much on technical reasons.

Is there really an issue? Because I tend to agree with D.J where it seems 
to be more a ideological view from a very narrow group from a specific
geography than a broad discussion that fits in a multicultural community
such ours.  

I give you that it seems to be the trend in tech industry to use such 
language (as indicated by Carlos original email) but I personally thing it 
will most likely be innocuous to improve inclusiveness (there are far more 
pertinent problems such as mentorship as you posed).  I saw from our 
community experience that important changes such as a different leadership 
is a much more effective way to bring new contributors, so I tend to see 
this whole discussion as huge waste of effort and energy.

But personally I don't really care about the branch name, I just think that
if the idea is to improve the community inclusiveness, hinted by the original
motivation, there are more effective ways to do so.