[ClusterLabs Developers] Pacemaker 2.1.0: Should we rename the master branch?

[Ken Gaillot]

Hi all,

I sent a message to the users at clusterlabs.org list about releasing
Pacemaker 2.1.0 next year.

Coincidentally, there is a plan in the git and Github communities to
change the default git branch from "master" to "main":

 https://github.com/github/renaming

The rationale for the change is not the specific meaning as used in
branching, but rather to avoid any possibility of fostering an
exclusionary environment, and to replace generic metaphors with
something more obvious (especially to non-native English speakers).

The change would not affect existing repositories/projects. However I
am wondering if we should take the opportunity of the minor-version
bump to do the same for Pacemaker. The impact on developers would be a
one-time process for each checkout/fork:

 https://wiki.clusterlabs.org/wiki/Pacemaker_2.1_Changes#Development_changes

In my opinion, this is a minor usage that many existing projects will
not bother changing, but I do think that since all new projects will
default to "main", sometime in the future any project still using
"master" will appear outdated to young developers.

We could use "main" or something else. Some projects are switching to
names like "release", "stable", or "next" depending on how they're
actually using the branch ("next" would be appropriate in Pacemaker's
case).

This will probably go on for years, so I am fine with either changing
it with 2.1.0 (since it has bigger changes than usual, and we can get
ahead of the curve) or waiting until the dust settles and future
conventions are clearer.

Opinions?
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>