Re: elpa.git and `new-master`

[Tim Landscheidt]

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> […]

> 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". 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.)

> 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.

In that context it is probably worth noting that the GNU
Coding Standards /require/ the use of the English language,
one (of several) that achieved its ubiquity not necessarily
always in a laudable way.  But it is unimaginable to find
any communication method that noone has a reason to feel of-
fended about.

So the costs are not fairly low; such a renaming shows that:

a) the offense (allegedly) felt by one group has more weight
   than others' pain, and that

b) someone still using the word "master" to name a Git
   branch does something objectionable, and that

b) loud, concerted campaigns are likely to succeed, encour-
   aging others to focus on such a strategy as well.

Tim