Re: elpa.git and `new-master`

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@fastmail.fm> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 16 2020, Jean Louis wrote:
>> * Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@gmx.com> [2020-12-16 09:48]:
>>> The example creates a new branch 'main' but you could just as well just
>>> rename the master branch to main:
>>> 
>>>   git branch -m master main
>>
>> There is no need to remain the branch just because some users will not
>> understand that one word may have several different meanings. One does
>> not change the world and reality to accommodate lack of understanding
>> of subset of people. We need rich meanings and rich understandings,
>> not less rich meanings and less understandings.
>
> The problem is that words not only have meanings but also connotations. And
> whether you like it or not, the word 'master' evokes the word 'slave' and
> everything associated with it. Perhaps the effect is stronger in English than in
> other languages, I don't know. 

The effect is stronger in the United States (where I live),
unfortunately; I made the suggestion with a strong US bias. But Gnu
Emacs is a global project, so I withdraw the suggestion.

> The effect is probably stronger in computer contexts because of the
> ubiquity of so-called "master-slave" architectures. And the effect is
> likely stronger for some people than for others. But the effect
> exists.

Yes, this is what I was trying to acknowledge.

> So please do not assume that people who advocate switching to the term "main" do
> not understand that words have different meanings. The point is that words can
> evoke sentiments even in contexts where their intended meaning wouldn't give
> rise to those sentiments.
>
> Whether that warrants changing the term "master branch" to "main branch" is
> certainly worth discussing, but the discussion cannot be decided on the
> basis of the dictionary meaning of "master", nor on its etymology. The
> discussion should centre around the question whether the benefits outweigh the
> costs.

+1.

> The costs in this case are, AFAIU, fairly low. Renaming a branch in Git, or
> creating a new branch, is easy and Git itself doesn't ascribe any special meaning
> to the branch name "master". 

The default clone branch is "master", or was in earlier git versions.
Which is why Stefan asked how to make the default clone work when
"master" is not correct. There was a solution posted, but I have not
tested it.

> At most it would be a one-time inconvenience for people regularly
> pulling from the main repo. (As far as I understand. I'm really not a
> Git expert.)

No, it affects novices cloning emacs.git for the first time. Something
that should not require Googling for an error message like "branch
master does not exist" :(. I have gotten similar messages when I tried
to use a repository with no branch named "master".

> I cannot comment on the benefits. I do not know how offensive the term "master"
> in Git is to those whose ancestors were enslaved and who themselves suffer from the
> effects of racism in society. We should not, however, preempt the discussion by
> pointing to the dictionary meaning of the word "master", implying that those who
> feel offended by the term have no reason to feel that way.

I have heard rumors of free software projects making this change, but I
have not had direct discussions with anyone who might feel offended by
"master" (I am not such a person).

-- 
-- Stephe