Alternative master/main branch proposal (Re: ANN: renaming of master branch to "main" for core repository and submodules (dictionaries, help, translations))
l.lunak at collabora.com
Thu Mar 18 20:04:38 UTC 2021
in order to make the discussion somewhat more constructive, I have an
alternative proposal on how to resolve the problem.
- There are currently no technical gains to be made from the change. There are
some costs to doing the change, but they are not blocking.
- We appear to be poorly equiped to evaluate the problem properly. Most of us
are not even native English speakers, and most of us aren't directly affected
by the problem (or presumably even know somebody who is). I can count only
one direct input from somebody directly affected, while the rest of us have
at best second-hand information (unless I'm missing something).
- The problem appears to be complicated and, as of now, without general
consensus. The proposal to rename our master mentions  that actually only
discusses 'master/slave' and not 'master' alone, and  that says GitHub
makes the default configurable and changes it to 'main'. The GitHub page
further links a 9-months-old statement from the git project that said they
had made the default configurable and were discussing further changes. As of
now, the git project still uses master as the default and also for their own
use. There are some projects that have meanwhile switched, and some that have
- It appears that no matter what we do, we cannot avoid somebody getting
offended. If we don't do the change, we risk offending people, if we do the
change, we also risk offending people (see e.g. ).
-  also casts doubt on whether the change actually really achieves anything
or how big the demand for the change actually is, especially from people that
it actually concerns.
- We are not in any special position here, we are just one of the many
projects using git. Therefore there does not appear to be any need to act on
our own. Presumably the issue gets discussed also elsewhere, and discussing
it here adds little to no value to it.
- The git project is the source of the git tool, and appears to be a suitable
place to discuss and set the trend here.
Therefore, I propose that the decision to rename the master branch is
postponed for as long as the git project does not take a definitive stance on
it. That stance may take the form of e.g. the git project making a statement
on it or changing their default and using it. Our decision can be then based
on this input and may e.g. take the form of simply taking the technical
decision to do what git does.
More information about the LibreOffice