I think companies are just looking for ways to help, and this is what Github came up with. I agree it's an odd reason for the change. The word "master" without

I think companies are just looking for ways to help, and this is what Github came up with. I agree it's an odd reason for the change. The word "master" without "slave" has many meanings, usually but not always when one person or thing controls another. It's used for dog owners ("a dog and his master"). A person can be the "master of their own fate" or a "master of disguise." Seinfeld joked about people being "masters of their own domain." All of that said, I don't really mind the result, whatever the reason. I remember that the name struck me as odd when I first started with Git. I assumed it came from "master copy," which in media is the copy from which other copies are made. But that doesn't really fit, in my view, because the whole point of a master copy is that it doesn't change. In Git the master is always changing. The other meanings don't fit either. The "master" branch doesn't really control anything, it is controlled by the user. So calling it "master" never really made sense to me. It seems like "primary," "main," "central" or a similar word fits better.