Because we should
Do you have experience with and guidance on how to do this without breaking all the tools and scripts that currently have the old branch name hardcoded? I acknowledge the importance of this, but I'm a bit at a loss on how to do this technically without breaking everything and everyone.
As a rough estimate of the work involved:
grep over our CI repo:
Plus the Google-internal stuff, the config in the Buildkite pipeline settings, the gitsync container, the Copybara setup, the Gerrit configuration / ACLs, pending pull requests, ...
This has to be very, very well coordinated (not only for this repo, even though it will be the hardest one, but also all the other repos in our org that are tested on CI).
See https://github.com/github/renaming for some guidance, specifically the mention that this will be more seamless later this year.
I had seen that page before, but not the "seamless" renaming coming later. I did this with rules_pkg a month ago and learned some pain points
While we could do this for small repo, doing this for Bazel should probably wait until after the renaming tool comes.
Hey, would someone be able to elaborate on:
Because we should
?
Hey, would someone be able to elaborate on:
Because we should
The term master
is offensive to some people. There's nothing special about the name in how git treats branches - it was just historically the name for the first branch.
Hey @UebelAndre :)
Terms like "master / slave" or "whitelist / blacklist" are considered as offensive by many people (e.g. reminding them of slavery or racism). Obviously the intent of using these terms was not to provoke these negative feelings - they just somehow happened to become standard terms in the IT, but if there's a good neutral term available to replace them, I think it's just kind to consider doing so. Thus, there has been a recent movement to find better words for what we try to say! Here's some background: https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-term-to-avoid-slavery-references/.
Often the recommended replacements actually convey the intended meaning better than the historically used words - some examples:
main
branch, because it's our... wait for it... main branch, where the development happens and release branches are cut from. :)Thanks @meisterT and @philwo! This ticket makes me very happy 😄
@cherryland your offensive behavior and your wording is not acceptable. We're open to discussion in a civilised manner but you've clearly crossed the line by wishing others death and by insulting people.
We are dedicated to inclusiveness and will continue our effort on this issue. Your disagreement is noted, but your messages disqualify you from any further involvement.
(This is mostly a bikeshed comment, feel free to ignore if it would complicate the migration)
Would it be possible for the new name to be trunk
rather than main
? That's what the primary development branch was usually called before Git was released, and it's easier to grep for than main
because it doesn't conflict with the C/C++ default entry point.
I'll see the bikeshed, and raise you. trunk always disappointed me as
a name.
If we want to be precise about it, there are only branches. We simply are
designating one as more central/important than the others.
We reflect that in the way we do development. Forking a branch gives us
something that exists independently.
The trunk does not feed the branches, as in a real tree. We have to do
extraordinary things to pull code from the primary
development branch to any other branch. I would rather see 'dev" or 'core'
as the name over trunk. That captures the fact
that we are doing the ongoing development there.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:50 PM John Millikin notifications@github.com
wrote:
(This is mostly a bikeshed comment, feel free to ignore if it would
complicate the migration)Would it be possible for the new name to be trunk rather than main?
That's what the primary development branch was usually called before Git
was released, and it's easier to grep for than main because it doesn't
conflict with the C/C++ default entry point.—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/12200#issuecomment-735343106,
or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXHHHHJPWLVRACWFAO5JWTSSHHJZANCNFSM4R7SWJXQ
.
Most helpful comment
@cherryland your offensive behavior and your wording is not acceptable. We're open to discussion in a civilised manner but you've clearly crossed the line by wishing others death and by insulting people.
We are dedicated to inclusiveness and will continue our effort on this issue. Your disagreement is noted, but your messages disqualify you from any further involvement.