Re: elpa.git and `new-master`

[Jean Louis]

* Joost Kremers <joostkremers@fastmail.fm> [2020-12-16 16:33]:
> 
> 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 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.

When I read master I just get the meaning of master copy. That is what
I say, some people will get various other meanings and those meanings
are clarified when person knows what is it really and in which
definition the word has been used.

git branch named "master" is not connected to any "slave" that I know
neither in computing terminology neither in real world.

> 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.

It is alright to me to start renaming the git branches from master to
anything you wish. 

Maybe is best to publish that on GNU pages to say what is political
stance regarding it. As if we do not publish it ourselves, it will
most probably be promoted and published directly or indirectly by
those who proposed that change in the first place.

So either way, the integrity is lost for the sake of new social
justice warriors.

Jean