
Remove some offensive/archaic terminology from OpenSSL - yarapavan
https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/2020-July/012677.html
======
Tarq0n
These initiatives appear to me like the ultimate form of bikeshedding. Making
real change to society is extremely hard, so instead people focus on the
superficial and immediately available.

~~~
HeyZuess
I don't know, maybe I have lost touch with reality, but these things seem
trivial at best. It's like a form of false martyrdom. It is easy to pick apart
the small things, and be offended (or extremely empathetic).

------
yarapavan
Context:

The link to PR request mentioned in the email chain ->
[https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12089](https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/12089)

The full email thread from openssl mailing list ->
[https://www.talkend.net/post/11803.html](https://www.talkend.net/post/11803.html)

------
catalogia
I don't really get why 'main' seems to be the goto replacement word. Surely
'trunk' is best, since it complements 'branch' analogy. Fossil calls it trunk
and IIRC subversion does too, probably a few others as well.

Is it because main and master both begin with the same letter?

~~~
glofish
trunk would not be a good term since it is not a trunk, it is a branch. Some
of the problems with the proposed alternatives (and this applies for the other
terms as well: "blocklist", "parent") is that the words are overly specific
and have a meaning that could be clearly misleading, like calling one of the
branches "trunk".

One of the reasons that white/black terms stuck is that they are not overly
specific hence can be applied for diverse situations yet maintain the clarity
of they mean.

Perhaps it should be called "first" or if you feel fancy "origo" \- as in the
first branch created when you initialize a repository.

~~~
catalogia
First/origo makes more sense to me than 'main' following that logic. I've seen
plenty of projects where the 'main'/'mainline'/'master' isn't actually where
any development is done or any code deployed from. Other branches originate
from them, but the focus of the developers is in other parts of the tree.
That's also why I think 'trunk' is a good name. It describes the positional
relationship that part of the tree has to other parts, without ascribing any
organizational importance to it.

I don't think 'first' is ideal though, since that has a temporal component and
would be better applied to the root commit.

------
Brian_K_White
"You pilot one fighter and slave the other three to yours..."

Gosh grandpa your sci-fi sure is an embarassing product of it's time huh?

