GNU bug report logs - #76407
[GCD] A better name for the default branch

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>, Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:21:21 +0100

Hello all,

echoing Leo's statement, my intuition is that this proposal is poorly
suited for a consensus based approach. There is not much compromise
possible (in the end, we need a branch name and only one), on a subject
where preferences are mainly based on feelings rather than technical
merits (in reality, any branch name would work, it is purely a matter
of convention). 

More generally, the GCD process has a strong bias in favour of change
for bikeshedding issues: Unless a person strongly opposes the change
(which is difficult to do, since then one is expected to work towards
a consensus on whether the shed should be painted in red or blue), it
is enough that 25% of the participants do reply with a weak "I accept"
(and in practice I suppose that at least the author will support).
So as Leo said, in such cases one is almost certain that a proposal will
be accepted without there being a strong consensus that it is a good
change.

The proposal has a few technical drawbacks (there is always a cost
involved in changing), but it looks to me like these can be overcome
without too many problems as already suggested by several participants
to the discussion. There do not seem to be real gains (except for people
feeling better about a different name, which is somewhat vague for
people not sharing that feeling).

Concerning the name, the current standard for git repositories is "master".
Apart from that, I have only seen "main". So maybe we can agree that all
other names are not practical? There is muscle memory involved in typing
"git checkout ...", and I do not see any point in choosing a completely
separate name only for the Guix project. Also the "git checkout m<tab>"
argument is convincing. Practically speaking, we could also stick with
"master" and wait and see whether "main" becomes the majority, and
decide to switch only if and when that happens.

Also, my impression is that it would be better to rather quickly delete
the master branch if we change names instead of keeping it around. It
would be better to create an error instead of letting people stick with
an outdated branch. In particular, we should make sure that "guix pull"
either works with the new name or breaks visibly, so that people do not
remain on "master" while thinking they are updating their system.

Now to the bike shedding part. Personally, I only associate positive
things with "master" and its versions in other languages. Usually
the word designates a person with particular training in a skill:
A "master of arts" has a university degree, a "maître menuisier" or
"Tischlermeister" is particularly trained in original woodwork, more so
than a "compagnon" or "Geselle", a "maestro" takes part in creating
exceptionally nice music.

The negative connotations of the word "master" seem to come only from a
US American viewpoint from the word pair "master"/"slave"; so from my
point of view, we are importing a US American culture war, by which I do
not feel concerned, into our international project.
Ekaitz writes: "the USA imperialism is forced upon me."
Even before reading his words, I essentially felt the same. Maybe we
could call it "US American cultural dominance" to be a bit more neutral.
We are already expected to communicate in English (while I may regret
that Latin has gone out of fashion, I must admit that English is just
the most practical solution right now). We are expected to use
US American spelling. Now we consider pandering to US American
sensitivities with respect to their history on how we name our branches.
(As far as I understand, the author of the proposal is not from the USA,
but this does not invalidate the argument about cultural dominance.)
All this is somewhat ironic: We start by using a language that is foreign
to many or probably even most of us, and end up being expected to share
also the cultural connotations linked to that language (in a particular
part of the world) that would not pose a problem if we had used a
different language from the start.
So maybe we should name the principal branch "caput" or "κεφάλαιο".

Andreas

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.