Re: Proposal: rename xen.git#master (to #trunk, perhaps)

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Jun 25, 2020, at 12:10 AM, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 24/06/2020 17:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I think it would be a good idea to rename this branch name.

[snip]

> Describing someone as a "master of their trade/skill/other", is a
> totally different context, and it would be excessive to suggest changing
> the language used in this way.  So too, in my opinion, is master as in
> "master copy", a different context and connotation to master as in
> master/slave.

Ian already noted that there was a question about the etymology of the name, 
but argued that we should change the name anyway.  With my committer hat on, I 
agree.

We could have a long discussion about the origin of various terms, and how well 
each one applies to our main development branch.  (For instance, if “master 
/copy” is the real etymology of the git master branch, I would argue that it 
was used inappropriately: “master / copy” is most appropriate in a situation 
where the thing being copied is nearly perfect and is rarely changed.  That’s 
certainly not true of our master branch.)

But reading the weather, I have to conclude that our industry is going in this 
direction, whether we like it or not.  (See for instance Jonathan Corbet’s 
opinion piece on the subject [1], and the subsequent discussion.)  At that 
point, the continued use of the word ‘master’ is no longer neutral: it will 
become a deliberate choice which will begin to communicate something which we 
don’t want to communicate.

There are times when standing against the tide is the right thing to do; but I 
don’t think this is one of them.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/823224/

> A much more meaningful use of time would be to address:
> 
> xen.git$ git grep -i -e slave -e whitelist -e blacklist | wc -l
> 194

Well, an even *more* meaningful use of our time might be for each of us to look 
into the behavior of the police forces over which we have influence, and 
consider whether we need to advocate for any systematic changes in the way 
they’re run.

Luckily, we don’t have to choose — we can do all of them. :-)

 -George