Minimum-CD/cd-manifesto

Update upstream trunk to main

desktophero opened this issue · 9 comments

desktophero commented

Current trunk branch is master. Propose updating to main

bdfinst commented

This will break all of the forks. The "master" / "main" controversy GitHub started is something I'd rather stay out of as well.

ferrix commented

This is the git default that people have accustomed to work with. What really changes for the better if this is changed? Please explain.

desktophero commented

The default is now main for new repos in GitHub. The change to forks isn't overly complex and GitHub did several things to make PRs map pretty well.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-next-month/

bdfinst commented

How does it add value to the goal of improving delivery to rename the trunk?
Today it's using the git default because it began with 'git init'.

bdfinst commented

The documentation uses "trunk". This discussion is about the default branch of MinimumCD repo.

bdfinst commented

The consensus is that the proposed change doesn't seem to improve the definition of CD and will disrupt current contributors.

nathenharvey commented

I came here to open a similar issue. main is generally recognized as more inclusive than master and renaming the default branch on this repository would seem to be inline with the goals of creating a welcoming, inclusive, and healthy community.

I understand that consensus has already been reached but would nevertheless like to voice support for the @desktophero's initial request in an effort to appeal the decision.

bdfinst commented

My personal opinion on this is:

  1. master is the git default. If I git init, build something, and then push to GitHub master is the trunk. This was the actual workflow last week.
  2. Renaming the trunk will disrupt the forks.
  3. We are being as inclusive of all version control systems as possible by using trunk in the documentation.
  4. If we moved this to GitLab or BitBucket this conversation would not be happening.
  5. This is a global effort with representatives from many countries that are confused by this debate.
  6. Renaming master to main has less even less social impact than renaming "master recording" to "primary recording" or "Master of Science" to "Awesome at Science". None of these things make the world more inclusive. We make the world inclusive by actively including people and asking people to share their ideas.

This community operates on consensus, but this is my opinion.

desktophero commented

My personal opinion on this is:

  1. master is the git default. If I git init, build something, and then push to GitHub master is the trunk. This was the actual workflow last week.
  2. Renaming the trunk will disrupt the forks.
  3. We are being as inclusive of all version control systems as possible by using trunk in the documentation.
  4. If we moved this to GitLab or BitBucket this conversation would not be happening.
  5. This is a global effort with representatives from many countries that are confused by this debate.
  6. Renaming master to main has less even less social impact than renaming "master recording" to "primary recording" or "Master of Science" to "Awesome at Science". None of these things make the world more inclusive. We make the world inclusive by actively including people and asking people to share their ideas.

This community operates on consensus, but this is my opinion.

  1. GitHub != git
  2. Low barrier ... fairly easy to do
  3. Sure ... and master can go. Call it trunk in the repo then. The inclusivity take isn't about the version control system.
  4. If the base branch was master in any DVCS, the topic would still be happening. The name, in of itself, is the point. Now, I might be a small, new voice raising it up, so maybe not finding it would have resulted in not having the discussion ... but that doesn't mean the DVCS is the trigger
  5. That's education to those members to understand ... in technology, with these small efforts, we can generate more inclusivity
  6. I just feel like I gotta start somewhere in driving more inclusivity and call out where it could be perceived as not being inclusive, esp where I'm not the marginalized one. Internally, we do this often for older repos to remove master. I might be more empathetic to my Black colleagues, friends, and cohorts when I feel 💯 better asking them to push to main than push to master.

If the consensus is established, no worries. The discussion can continue.

  • 👍2