Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
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".
This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of logic for me. I can get on board with that. Beyond just that logic, however, are there organisations who hold the same opinion? Affected people who do? That would be immensely valuable as rationale for making the change, beside this somewhat semantic argument.
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 interpreted that line as being "the master branch isn't usually paired up with the word 'slave', except in 'gitslave'". I guess that is the source of confusion.
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.
Agreed.
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.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting. You said that doing this upstream would result in people being mad. I asserted that it's going to result in people being mad one way or another. I did not mean or imply anything other than that, and do not see how this statement can be interpreted otherwise. In any case, thank you, you've convinced me. I stand by most of what I've said, but I can kind of see the connection to the practice of slavery more clearly. If the change can be done transparently (i.e., nobody needs to lift a finger, as said in the thread), I don't have any strong objections against the change. Otherwise I'd urge to balance the gains against the pains. With kindness, Carmen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part