3 ms·
You're thinking of the wrong definition of master. Git's master refers to the primary copy of something from which derivative copies are made. E.g. In casting,
by jetrink 6y ago
You're thinking of the wrong definition of master. Git's master refers to the primary copy of something from which derivative copies are made. E.g. In casting, a master is used to form new molds[1]. In audio engineering, a master tape holds the final mix of a recording[2]. (Incidentally, this is where the term remastering comes from, because you are creating a new master version.)
1. https://www.instructables.com/id/Two-Part-Silicone-Casting/ https://www.instructables.com/id/Two-Part-Silicone-Casting/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio)
- multiplegeorges 6y agoI keep seeing this stated as fact without any citation whatsoever. Here's an argument with citations that the term "master" in the git context does indeed come from the master/slave terminology: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
- D13Fd 6y agoThat's where I assumed "master" came from. But it still doesn't fit, because a master copy is normally static. The master branch in Git is anything but static.
- loco5niner 6y ago> because a master copy is normally static That depends on the time scale you are considering.
- ohlookabird 6y agoWhy not use "primary" then? In database terminology primary and replica are quite common for instance.