Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 14:07 +0200, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote:
> Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 12:09 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > - Why?
> >
> > For the same reasons we'd want to change master/slave references.
> > Though it usually isn't paired up with "slave" (excluding the
> > "gitslave" addon), it still has strong connotations of subjugation,
> > and
> > some ties with the vocabulary we're trying to change.
>
> Can this assertion be backed up by anything substantive? This keeps
> being said, and I'm willing to believe it, but no actual arguments
> are
> being made as to _why_ this is.
>
> Specifically, this question needs an answer:
>
> Is the word "master"---in the context of a trunk branch---a charged
> term that negatively impacts existing and/or would-be contributors?
>
> Or more broadly would also suffice, is the word "master" generally
> tainted as a charged term referring to the practice of slavery?
>
> It's clear that "master"/"slave" terminology has a direct analogy to
> the practice of slavery and should be abandoned, but I cannot
> personally extend this line of reasoning to the word "master" in
> isolation.

If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
"master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one
medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
"master/slave" relationship.

There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master
copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it
were "slave copies".

I also linked to this:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy
which shows when the term started being used (eg. it doesn't predate or
descend from a term from the middle ages).

I couldn't find reference to why "mastering" was called "mastering",
but I also could not find any hints that it wasn't connected to
"master/slave".

> Also: The "gitslave" project, to the best of my knowledge, is about
> managing submodules, not branches. It's not really a charitable
> analogy.

I merely said that it existed, an exception to the rule. I didn't
mention it as an analogy, and I'm not sure why you would read it as
that.

> > I understand that the connection is more tenuous than straight up
> > "master/slave" references, which is why I want to emphasise that we
> > don't need any more comments about whether the negative
> > connotations of
> > "master" alone don't apply in your language or culture.
> >
> > I'd be much more interested in folks coming forward with references
> > where it is the case.
>
> I can appreciate this sentiment (I've been asking for the exact same
> thing the entire time), but this line of reasoning doesn't really
> hold:
> The connection is tenuous, therefore any arguments to the contrary
> should be ignored. That seems a bit silly to me.

Explaining that the connection is tenuous isn't the same thing as
repeatedly being told that it's invalid because it's not valid to the
person sending the email. It's the latter that I mind.

> I suppose what that paragraph should have said is that the opinions
> of
> those negatively affected are prioritised, owing to the simple fact
> that they are negatively affected. That makes more sense to me.
>
> > - Why not in git directly?
> >
> > Because that's already hard enough to propose something like this
> > in a
> > welcoming community like GNOME's. I've already seen offline
> > comments
> > made to people who participated in this thread, and this would go
> > down
> > about as well as like Linux' adoption of a code of conduct[6].
>
> I still believe that this would be a valuable endeavour if the
> premise
> is true. Maybe I'm naive, but if the premise is true and the word
> "master" negatively affects people, then doing this upstream would
> beneficially impact more people than if this were done just in GNOME.
>
> It would also reduce the pain of breaking a default.
>
> The shitstorm is to be expected one way or another. The only
> difference
> would be whether GNOME or The Linux Foundation is smeared in internet
> comments as "SJWs changing things and I don't like it".

Because you think that it would be just the organisations being
smeared? Or that they would just be smeared? Sorry, I'm not courageous
(or foolish) enough to even attempt that.

Think of what this process is as inspiration to others.