GNU bug report logs -
#76407
[GCD] A better name for the default branch
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Am Freitag, dem 21.02.2025 um 11:48 +0100 schrieb Ekaitz Zarraga:
> > Third, people who feel represented by this change have no
> > obligation to tell you that in this level of detail. In fact,
> > given the attitudes of some people replying to this GCD, it would
> > be wiser for them not to.
>
> Saying "I support" is more than enough, but I would really want to
> know if they actually exist, because I'd like to make sure we are
> doing this for something.
Given that I've received four sponsors over the course of a weekend,
I'm not really concerned that this benefits no one.
> I don't think it's infeasible. It is actually very feasible, you
> just need to change the branch name and push. Done.
>
> The problem is that some people already shared their concern, while I
> don't see any justification for the change that has the same weight.
So you mean that people have non-technical concerns about the name of
the default branch? I won't repeat your arguments, but yes, I
understand that you want it to remain at "master".
I have listed some issues that this GCD does not address at the end of
the document. To my knowledge, these are the points raised so far that
it cannot address. If you would like me to add another that is within
the scope of the document, do let me know.
> I don't see any kind of internationalist approach here, we are just
> swallowing whatever garbage an US company throws to us and tells us
> is good.
>
> This proposal is very US-centric, and goes according to their values,
> and religion. That's why it became popular there.
Even assuming that this is true, how is this any different from
swallowing garbage, that some US entity told us 10 years ago is good
(i.e. the status quo)?
I also don't think there is a clear mapping between "thing happening in
the USA/outside the USA" and "thing good/bad". The world is more
complex than that, with some nuance to it.
In any case, I think that the Guix community can – using the recently
established process for doing so – reach a consensus on what the name
of the default branch shall be.
> I don't think Linus Torvalds called the branch "master" thinking
> about slavery or as a way to shame people,
This is not about Linus' intentions. People can have opinions that
differ from those of Linus Torvalds.
> I don't think removing the word is really going to change anything.
Acknowledged.
> But will do some (maybe little) damage in Guix, as some people
> already discussed.
What damage will it to, exactly? So far, I think the concerns are
- a mild inconvenience to contributors checking out the new default
branch
- a mild inconvenience to channel authors, requiring them to explicitly
state their default branch
- an almost user-invisible change possibly causing them to run
`guix pull` twice on a particularly old checkout
Perhaps, you also consider adoption of this change to result in
reputational damage to Guix. If so, why?
> If we need to make the life of a couple US-Americans a little bit
> uncomfortable in order to keep our software working as intended, so
> be it.
Do we need though? Or are you simply resisting change for the sake of
doing so? Note that this assertion also contradicts the one you made
earlier that this change can "easily be pushed and done".
> I am uncomfortable every time I need to speak in english here (a
> reminder of how the USA imperialism is forced upon me), and here we
> are.
Wir können auch Deutsch miteinander reden, damit hätte ich kein
Problem.
> Consider me done here.
Okay.
Cheers
This bug report was last modified 35 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.