Re: Rename "master" branch to "main"?

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>]

On 7/1/20 8:29 AM, Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha wrote:
> On 30/06/2020 19:59, DJ Delorie via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> "Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> writes:
>>> My proposal would be to rename the development and current release branch:
>>>
>>> * master -> main
>>>
>>> * release/2.32/master -> release/2.32/main
>>
>> I will pose the unpopular opinion that the cost of this change[1] is
>> higher than the value of the change.  The word "master" has many
>> meanings, and even in this case the context (and thus meaning) has
>> changed over time.  
> 
> I tend to agree with you and this 'master' meaning is even more nebulous
> in other languages context (on portuguese, for instance, its direct
> translation is 'mestre' which is does not have the same historical baggage
> as in english, the derogatory meaning is more associated with 'senhor' 
> which directly translate to 'mister' or 'lord').

In the context of git, the term "master" was taken from bitkeeper, and
there it used as a master/slave context for repositories. The irony is that
git is a dvcs, there is no "master" repository in the context of the design
of the framework.

> Since we use "master" in the adjective case (master
>> branch), and don't use the word "slave" anywhere (we use
>> master/release), IMHO this is a case where we've gone too far down the
>> slippery slope and are making a change for the sake of looking good and
>> not for the sake of actually improving anything.  Our efforts to
>> *actually* be inclusive have been far more useful and meaningful than
>> any efforts to just *appear* inclusive, and we should continue to apply
>> our efforts in that manner, such as responding more timely to new people
>> on the mailing list and IRC, or reviewing patches.
> 
> Totally agree, the pragmatic gain with this chance does not address or
> improve any of the points you noted. A program of active mentoring, for
> instance, would be way more effective (just to give an example).
 
We should do *both*!

I have a mentoring program that I'm running within Red Hat to train an
additional person in glibc development, and I think it's going well.

If the internal mentoring goes well I will extend it to external mentoring
in 2021 for new developers on an annual basis.

>> If we want to rename the master branch to a more meaningful name, there
>> are far more meaningful choices than "main".  "Trunk" goes with the
>> "branch" metaphor.  How about "development"?  We have an opportunity to
>> pick something precise and obvious, let's not waste it by blindly
>> following others.
> 
> I am still doubtful if we should really change the branch name.

The branch renaming is a non-recurring engineering cost for us to 
transition. It has no ongoing cost, unlike a mentoring program, which has
a sustained cost forever. Thus the cost of the rename is minor compared
to the cost of the mentoring project.

We have at least two instances of identified problematic language in the
source repository. At the end of the day, for me, it's just a search and
replace away from being fixed. I don't care what we call it. I do care
that a group of people have asked us to change it.

I'm not in a position to judge anyone's feelings, but I am in a position
to act and make others feel more included with a change in branch name.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.