Rename "master" branch to "main"?

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 01/07/2020 09:49, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 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.

And this is example of connotation lost in history, the 'master' here has
even less connection of its original meaning.

> 
>> 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.

This is a excellent initiative and I glad to help if possible. But I still
doubtful that playing with technological terms still yield any pragmatic
change here.

> 
>>> 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.
> 

I agree this is minor issue and might just be an just an annoyance for 
some users (that might need to adapt some tools or scripts). And I don't
want to delve into in the personal reasons someone asked for this change
(it is a can of worm that can derail this discussion). 

My point is just that although this change has zero cost pragmatically it 
will most likely has zero outcome. In fact in with current turbulent 
ideological clash worldwide I see this kind of change as more alienating 
than beneficial.