On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 07:31:08PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > > > > My interpretation thus far is that 'main' is the planned replacement for > > > > > 'master'. Consensus seems to have formed around this name [5], but if that's > > > > > incorrect--or there are yet-unvoiced opinions that you would like to share--now > > > > > is the time to discuss further. > > > > > > My opinion is that "main" is the best suggestion I've heard. > > > > See also > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200616210701.22924-1-zeevriend@xxxxxxxxx/ > > So you completely ignore this input. I didn't ignore it. I just didn't have anything useful to add after reading your email. If there's a potential problem with "main", I think it's worth considering. But I have a very difficult time figuring out how to consider all of the inputs. Personally, I don't find "main" to be a problematic word. It has no other connotations in my personal experience. But then the same is true of "master" as well. Anybody in a similar position who is working on the project and might need to form an opinion about which default word to use has to rely on input from others. The email linked above is one data point. There are other data points arguing that "master" is bad. In an ideal world, we'd have a name that has no data points at all arguing against it. But I'm not sure how feasible it is to accommodate everybody. There seem to be enough data points arguing against "master" that I can believe there's a non-trivial number of people who would like the default changed to something else[1]. I had wondered if other people might speak up against "main", but I have not seen anyone do so (neither here, nor in other forums where the name "main" has been discussed). That doesn't invalidate the opinion of the author above. But if we have to choose something from among an imperfect set of options, then that may involve picking the least-bad name. I am open to the argument that the very people the author suggests might be bothered by "main" might also not be well represented on this list or in other forums discussing the change. It would be helpful if any proponents of that argument could try to gather some evidence. > That kind of gives confirmation to the naysayers that point out this is > not really about inclusivity but about US-internal politics. > > If that is so be more honest and clearly say that by being based in the > US you must give way to certain activists or be potentailly subject to > terrorism from the same or more radical colleagues of the activists that > request the change. I'm not sure what constructive action you're asking for here. The link to the email above suggests that you might be arguing for a different alternative besides "main". If so, please suggest it (or if you did elsewhere already and I missed it: sorry, please repeat it). If your point is to argue "you care about master but not about main, therefore you're a hypocrite and we should change nothing". Then one, I do not agree with that characterization, and two, I don't think that's a very helpful addition to the conversation. If you meant something else, please help me figure out what it is. -Peff [1] I'm also open to the argument that the number of data points arguing against "master" are inflated by well-meaning people who claim to speak on behalf of others. But it seems very hard to me to collect useful data on this kind of thing. My personal feeling is that it makes sense to err on the side of empathy where it's practical to do so.
