On Wed, 2019-05-01 at 21:58 +1000, Michael Gratton wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 21:52, Michael Gratton <mike vee net> wrote:On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:48, Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com> wrote:On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 12:38, Michael Gratton <mike vee net> wrote:They have also been successful in getting other projects to use more inclusive language. For example, MongoDB initially refused to stop using the term "master", but then relented after Python did so.That's misrepresenting it *AGAIN*. Both stopped using master along with slave. The main developer branch is still called master in both projects.In any case, if you would care to actually read the diffs on the Python change, you'll see that it covered a number of instances of using another word for "master" when "slave" wasn't involved. It's not the pair of terms that is problematic, it's either term in isolation that is. Further, this proposal is actually covers changing fewer terms than Python did, and hence is more conservative in that respect. Please, actually read it: <https://bugs.python.org/issue34605>
It looks to me like all replaced references are references which contain process relationships; in most cases the managed process was called a "slave", but there were various exception in which the term "master" was still changed. But this is already very sensible simply for consistency reasons. A number of comments–including ones by the original reporter–actually deem the term "master" to be unproblematic in other contexts and even mentioning the specific case of git. See https://bugs.python.org/issue34605#msg324747 I did not find a comment in the mentioned issue that argues that the git branch name is problematic. Benjamin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part