Closed martintoreilly closed 3 years ago
@jemrobinson @JimMadge @thobson88 Thoughts on my proposed new naming conventions please. I'm open to suggestions for other alternative names. Also happy to plan timing of changes for after we merge outstanding large PRs like the Github ingress review one.
I'm happy with those names. In fact, they are more descriptive. I prefer main over default.
Thinking about descriptive names, master might actually be a poor choice. In the way we tend to use that branch, it doesn't control other branches, nor is it a 'master copy' because changes introduced on other branches will eventually be merged back.
Is our master
branch actually development
?
Is our
master
branch actuallydevelopment
?
Yes, I think it is.
100% agree on the approved/forbidden change. I'll update the package policy docs.
I think develop
is the git flow convention (as opposed to development
). Perhaps that's all we need, but if we wanted another name for the master
branch in that model I'd suggest stable
(as more descriptive than main
).
So it sounds like we have consensus on changing from whitelist
and blacklist
to approved list
and forbidden list
.
I think the only place it's not entirely in our gift to make the change are the whitelist
and blacklist
plugin sections in the Bandersnatch configuration file we patch with our approved and forbidden lists. I've opened an issue on the Bandersnatch repo proposing a similar change - https://github.com/pypa/bandersnatch/issues/569.
I'm happy with our main branch being development
or develop
. @jemrobinson I'll leave the final call on this to you.
I'm happy with develop
if that's an existing convention.
master
alternativesmain
, but GitHub don't specify what their choice will be.main
.whitelist
/ blacklist
alternativesallowlist
/ denylist
allowlist
/ blocklist
ExcludeList
safelist
and ignorableX
Looks like there's broad consensus on replacing whitelist
with allowlist
, but we seem to be the only ones thinking about using forbiddenlist
to replace blacklist
.
I think we should pick either denylist
or blocklist
as these seem to be the terms gaining traction in the wider community.
Preferences? @jemrobinson @thobson88 @JimMadge?
allow
/ deny
seems like a sensible pairing to me.
Decision is allow
/ deny
. If we make the PR to bandernatch then we get to make the terms match there as the maintainer is happy for terms to be picked by who does the work (see the PR I opened for this https://github.com/pypa/bandersnatch/issues/569)
It's coming up to a year after we decided to move from whitelist
and blacklist
to allowlist
and denylist
but we've not yet made the changes to references in our code and documentation. Can we bump this up the priority list? Note there is now a parallel discussion on making a similar change for all Turing repos on the Hut23 repo
I'd like to change some of the references we use to move away from using terms that have their origins in concepts of racial inequality.
Whitelist / blacklist
Decision is to change all references to
whitelist
toallowlist
and all references toblacklist
todenylist
. If we make the PR to bandernatch then we get to make the terms match there as the maintainer is happy for terms to be picked by who does the work (see the PR I opened for this https://github.com/pypa/bandersnatch/issues/569)Default branch name
Initial proposal was to change the default repository branch name from
master
tomain
, following the conversation at https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674, which apparently has some traction in the wider community.Looks like internal consensus in project team is for
develop
.