Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa To Join Other Open-Source Projects With "Main" For Primary Code Branch

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Every time I watch Star Wars and someone says "master Jedi" I get seriously triggered!! The should change the movie and use "main Jedi" because context doesn't matter for this evil words!! /s

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by microcode View Post

      If you are ESL I could sorta understand getting that impression, but this is not how the word "master" works in English.
      I mean anywhere that was controlled by the Roman Empire doesn't really have a huge excuse given that the word "master" is taken from the French maître (which would have originally been spelled mastre) and has cognates across the former Roman Empire from the Italian/Spanish maestro to the German meister. If you're outside of that then fine, I suppose.

      Comment


      • #53
        clown world

        Comment


        • #54
          Looking at the reactions to GitHub renaming "master" to "main", there are a LOT of people who welcomed that. If this change helps mesa become more popular and attract more contributors, then it's a good change.

          Personally, I come from a place where slavery never existed, and neither has racism. But I can respect that there are people who are sensitive to these topics, and if this helps them feel more welcome, then why not?

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by ZeroPointEnergy View Post
            Every time I watch Star Wars and someone says "master Jedi" I get seriously triggered!! The should change the movie and use "main Jedi" because context doesn't matter for this evil words!! /s
            Now you know why they enacted Order 66.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by mykolak View Post

              On contrary this moves away from politicization. There is group A which doesn't see any political meaning in git's `master` and group B which sees a political meaning in git's `master`. With `main` both groups don't see any political meaning. And again this very simple change, it's just branch name.
              I don't consider your equation to be correct though. The main issue here is that group A doesn't see a point in changing anything just because group B sees a political meaning in it. Giving in to group B divides the community in my eyes and doesn't solve anything. Well, there are more pressing issues so I don't bother too much in the end in that particular case but in general, these people on a moral crusade need to stop and all would be better off if they put their energy into solving real issues instead.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Venemo View Post
                Looking at the reactions to GitHub renaming "master" to "main", there are a LOT of people who welcomed that. If this change helps mesa become more popular and attract more contributors, then it's a good change.

                Personally, I come from a place where slavery never existed, and neither has racism. But I can respect that there are people who are sensitive to these topics, and if this helps them feel more welcome, then why not?
                What is wrong with sticking to an established naming convention? The branch naming has nothing to do with racism or slavery and people which claim that this kind of language makes them feel unwelcome and uncomfortable have serious self-esteem issues which they should consider to deal with first. Why should the community accustom to them and not the other way around? Some people mentioned technical reasons for this change, but I haven't read anything which is convincing enough to put any effort into changing an already established convention. I admit, the change in this case is not that costly but still, if this establishes a precendent then better be sure to look at all the comments in your code base if they meet that high bar of inclusive language or else the same people will start to bother you next week again and the week after that they will find some function names which offend them, too. Good luck dealing with that churn.
                Last edited by ms178; 09 August 2020, 09:57 AM.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by microcode View Post

                  If you are ESL I could sorta understand getting that impression, but this is not how the word "master" works in English.
                  To repeat comments made above: A master tape (in the studio sense) is the definitive version from which others are copied to be hopefully an identical copy, same sense for a master key. I think this is the sense in which the name was chosen for git, but in git, 'master' is not at all the final and definitive version of the software; rather the opposite, so much so that if you are following upstream, you have to keep refreshing your "master" to catch up. You may therefore argue that there is a "master" repository, but git is explicitly decentralised, and if we do have a term in common currency, it is more likely to be "upstream".

                  So 'master' is poorly named in my opinion, and I am a native speaker with a Linguistics degree. Mercurial's trunk is a better name, and so is 'main' or 'default'.

                  Also look again at whitelists and blacklists. Blacklist is not obvious in its meaning, rather it's a term you have to learn, but blocklist or denylist is: these terms define themselves, which is always a good quality of a name in code. This is also why 'upstream' is a good name, it is figuratively clear.

                  Clearly there is a lot of hostility to these changes, because the stream of projects adopting these ideas provokes a very consistent response in these forums, just as the Linux code of conduct changes about two years ago created a lot of fearful responses. In that case: if the fear was really motivated by technical concerns, it's time for opponents to concede the fears were unjustified. Linux releases have just got bigger and better. If you search for code of conduct, there are hardly any results after Sept 2018. This is not the same as saying the the code of conduct has improved diversity, that I don't know, but it doesn't look like it has caused harm, despite the predictions that a critical mass of developers would storm out and remove their code.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by ms178 View Post

                    What is wrong with sticking to an established naming convention?
                    It's only established in git because the initial branch happens to be named that way. It's not an established term outside of git in any other VCS.
                    In fact, the original author behind the the "master" branch naming in git has the following to say about that:

                    I picked the names "master" (and "origin") in the early Git tooling back in 2005. (this probably means you shouldn't give much weight to my name preferences ) I have wished many times I would have named them "main" (and "upstream") instead.
                    Source:
                    ​​​​​​​https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/12...756056577?s=20

                    The branch naming has nothing to do with racism or slavery and people which claim that this kind of language makes them feel unwelcome and uncomfortable have serious self-esteem issues which they should consider to deal with first. Why should the community accustom to them and not the other way around?
                    You got that wrong. It is in fact the community that has decided to rename the branch from master to main. In this article it is the Mesa community that has decided that.
                    ​​​​​​

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by ms178 View Post
                      I don't consider your equation to be correct though. The main issue here is that group A doesn't see a point in changing anything just because group B sees a political meaning in it. Giving in to group B divides the community in my eyes and doesn't solve anything.
                      Why it divides? Why group A should be bothered if it named master or main? For them they both are neutral. Changing from neutral to neutral doesn't change anything. But it will make group B happier. So why not? It's minor simple change.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X