On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:30:43 +0900
Inada Naoki wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:10 AM Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev
> wrote:
> >
> > On 10.03.2021 3:53, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:47 AM Damian Shaw
> > > wrote:
> > >>> Does 'master' confuse people?
> > >> There
On 10/03/2021 10.30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:30:43 +0900
> Inada Naoki wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:10 AM Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10.03.2021 3:53, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:47 AM Damian Shaw
wrote:
>
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 11:14:26 +0100
Christian Heimes wrote:
> On 10/03/2021 10.30, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:30:43 +0900
> > Inada Naoki wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:10 AM Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 10.03.2021 3:53, Chris Angelico w
Hi,
Why choose "main" as a replacement for "master"?
It's the development branch, shouldn't we call it "development" or "dev"?
We give release branches meaningful names, so why give the development
branch the not-so-meaningful name "main".
From a user's perspective the "main" branch is whatever
I think https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GDAUZKYB6GP3A3ZGBSQ4KQ7R6QFIZHZC/ and
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/RE3V6Y7CPHOL6LGPPYSVS3XQFTIQRZ3J/ already explained the reasons in
sufficient detail -- that "main" is a politicall
Indeed, if we change the name of the default branch, it should be
something standard, so "main". Projects with non-standard branch names
are pointlessly annoying to navigate.
Regards
Antoine.
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:47:11 +0300
Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> I think
> https://mail.pyt
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:41 AM Mark Shannon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why choose "main" as a replacement for "master"?
> It's the development branch, shouldn't we call it "development" or "dev"?
>
> We give release branches meaningful names, so why give the development
> branch the not-so-meaningful nam
On 10/03/2021 01:30, Inada Naoki wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:10 AM Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev
wrote:
Anyway, this is yet another SJW non-issue (countries other than US don't have a
modern history of slavery) so this change is a political
statement rather than has any technical merit.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:27:19PM +, Pablo Galindo Salgado wrote:
>The Steering Council discussed renaming the master branch to main and
>the consensus was that we should do that.
And about time too. Can we now tackle some of the equally pressing use
of offensive terms that are com
Dear all,
Apparently renaming a git branch to follow the general convention is now an
unbearable outrage. It strikes me as a somewhat odd hill to die on, but
okay. However there is a code of conduct that is supposed to be followed
here https://www.python.org/psf/conduct. Let me quote
> Examples o
Hi,
I am writing on behalf of the Python Release Management team. The Steering
Council has requested the RM team to schedule
and perform the necessary changes to rename the default branch from master
to main.
# The changes
What follows is the technical description of the changes and the timeline
Hi
I would be great to read the impact analysis for this change, and
understand who the identified impacted parties are, and what the plan is to
notify them and help them update within this timescale.
Has this analysis been published anywhere? I know there are lots of places
where discussions/doc
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:13 PM Evpok Padding
wrote:
> Apparently renaming a git branch to follow the general convention is now
> an unbearable outrage. It strikes me as a somewhat odd hill to die on, but
> okay. However there is a code of conduct that is supposed to be followed
> here https://ww
Hi,
Could we please stick to the point of renaming a Git branch? Today,
renaming a branch is easy. The rationale has been given. I don't think
any argument is going to make the Steering Concil changing their mind
("the consensus was that we should do that"). If you want to help,
please remain at t
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:23:33 +
David Mertz wrote:
>
> Renaming main branches as 'main' is currently predominant practice on
> GitHub (and more broadly in Free Software communities). Python doesn't
> need to cling to an old name based on a tired argument that political
> sensitivity is a cree
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:16 AM Evpok Padding wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Apparently renaming a git branch to follow the general convention is now an
> unbearable outrage.
It is NOT a general convention. It is a push by Microsoft (owners of
GitHub). Outside of GitHub, the git command still uses "m
On 2021-03-10 15:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:23:33 +
David Mertz wrote:
Renaming main branches as 'main' is currently predominant practice on
GitHub (and more broadly in Free Software communities). Python doesn't
need to cling to an old name based on a tired argument
- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Angelico"
> To: "Python-Dev"
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:20:19 PM
> Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Steering Council update for February
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:16 AM Evpok Padding
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Apparently renaming a g
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:48 AM Charalampos Stratakis
wrote:
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Chris Angelico"
> > To: "Python-Dev"
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:20:19 PM
> > Subject: [Python-Dev] Re: Steering Council update for February
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:1
Hi,
I am using cprofile and PStats to try and figure out where bottlenecks are in a
program. When I sum up all of the times in the "tottime" column, it only comes
to 57% of the total runtime. Is this due to rounding of times or some other
issue?
Thanks,
Jonathan
___
I echo Barry's earlier response.
To directly address individuals who object to renaming the branch: I
respect your opinion. As I weigh the benefits of keeping the status quo
with the benefits of changing, I see the change as a temporary
inconvenience to update the branch once in order to open the
I am answering this as a member of the release management team, not as an
official response from the SC.
> and understand who the identified impacted parties are
All developers that have clones of the repository and any party maintaining
any script that interacts with the default CPython branch.
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:38:46 +
MRAB wrote:
> On 2021-03-10 15:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:23:33 +
> > David Mertz wrote:
> >>
> >> Renaming main branches as 'main' is currently predominant practice on
> >> GitHub (and more broadly in Free Software communities).
While, I agree "master" is not and should not be considered a
derogatory term—it has demonstrable valid usage—unfortunately the broad
usage of "master/slave" terminology in technology muddies the waters.
If it's not changed, the debate about the continuing to use the term
will likely be ongoing.
On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 02:20 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> It is NOT a general convention. It is a push by Microsoft (owners of
> GitHub). Outside of GitHub, the git command still uses "master" as
> the
> default name.
I agree, not yet. But I think the writing is on the wall that this will
be the
Thanks for the response!
No. It has been discussed by the Steering Council as you can see in the
> February update:
> https://github.com/python/steering-council/blob/main/updates/2021-02-steering-council-update.md
>
>
Ok, great, I assume the missing bits will be coming in the March update
Steve
_
It is NOT a general convention. It is a push by Microsoft (owners of
GitHub). Outside of GitHub, the git command still uses "master" as the
default name.
> I agree, not yet. But I think the writing is on the wall that this will
be the new convention.
FYI for accuracy the git installer includes a
On 3/10/2021 7:16 AM, Jonathan Frawley wrote:
I am using cprofile and PStats to try and figure out where bottlenecks are in a program.
When I sum up all of the times in the "tottime" column, it only comes to 57% of
the total runtime. Is this due to rounding of times or some other issue?
pyde
Evpok, did you think I was joking?
I think it is a terrible thing for you to accuse me of being
"derogatory" and threaten me with the CoC because I have said we need to
do better. It sounds like you are making light of the real pain people
are suffering, every bit as real if not more so than th
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:23:33PM +, David Mertz wrote:
> >> It even has a symbol for chains, which is associated even more
> >> closely with slavery than "master".
> >>
> >
> All the other examples are also forced and contrived. This is perhaps
> worst. I own several chains for purposes ha
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 4:30 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > All the other examples are also forced and contrived. This is perhaps
> worst. I own several chains for purposes having nothing to do with bondage
> or oppression.
>
> Chains are an almost universal symbol of bondage and slavery: "Man is
I don't think it's particularly constructive, even as a strawman, to
imagine every conceivable way some word could be interpreted as
offensive. I submit that if the community consensus is that "chain"
becomes a derogatory term, then we should agree to change it too.
On Thu, 2021-03-11 at 08:23 +11
On 2021-03-10 13:45, David Mertz wrote:
In contrast, the "master" used in version control directly borrows from
so-called "master/slave network architecture."
It was shown upthread that this isn't the case. Do you have more accurate
documentation to refute the claim?
- https://twitter.co
On 11/03/2021 00.38, Mike Miller wrote:
>
> On 2021-03-10 13:45, David Mertz wrote:
>> In contrast, the "master" used in version control directly borrows
>> from so-called "master/slave network architecture."
>
>
> It was shown upthread that this isn't the case. Do you have more
> accurate docu
Google tells me...
From https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask
:
> We are then going to modify the file on both the master and slave
> repository and then merge the work.
This particular passage was also cited in GNOME developer discussions
regarding the usage of the
> On Mar 10, 2021, at 4:45 PM, David Mertz wrote:
>
> In contrast, the "master" used in version control directly borrows from
> so-called "master/slave network architecture." I saw in this thread one
> implausible argument that it was intended in the sense of "magister." I don't
> believe it
GitLab has just posted the following re: default branches.
https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/03/10/new-git-default-branch-name/
Please take a moment to pause before posting. Please consider whether
additional comments are constructive. I'm concerned that rehashing the same
arguments will reflect
10.03.21 16:06, Pablo Galindo Salgado пише:
> # What you need to do?
>
> You just need to update your local clone after the branch name changes.
> From the local clone of the repository on a computer,
> run the following commands to update the name of the default branch.
>
> $ git branch -m maste
38 matches
Mail list logo
