4 ms·
I think it's important to note that master has no relation to master/slave. It's master as in master copy or master key.
by ng12 6y ago
I think it's important to note that master has no relation to master/slave. It's master as in master copy or master key.
- goto11 6y ago"No relation" is wrong since it is the same word.
- msla 6y agoLike how "fluke" as in parasite and "fluke" as in tail lobe are the same word?
- ehnto 6y agoRead; read. Bail; bail. Ride; ride. Cap; cap. Tap; tap. The list goes on. English is full of words with totally different meanings but the same spelling.
- goto11 6y agoYou are thinking of homonyms.
- ehnto 6y agoYou might be right. You could argue Master does have a homonym, as "Authority over thing" comes from Latin origins in "magister" while "Full proficiency at a skill" comes from the French "maistre". But they more or less came to mean the same thing in English. To say someone has "Authority over a skill" embodies the meaning of both at once as an example. Digging into the usage of Master for "Master Copy" you could say the intention is that the master copy has authority, or highest standing, over all other copies, so more or less the meaning they were trying to avoid.
- lykr0n 6y agoWords can mean totally different things. Contextually, they are unrelated.
- goto11 6y agoMaster: "Someone who has control over something or someone. ... (engineering, computing) A device that is controlling other devices or is an authoritative source. " They are not unrelated. I'm not making an argument whether the word is inappropriate or not. Just pointing out an etymological fact.
- tomohawk 6y agoThe strategy here is to pick things that cannot defend themselves like words and statues and attack them. If an impact is achieved, you can declare victory, use it for recruiting, etc.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bretthopper 6y agoDoesn't it come from Bitkeeper? See https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/H... for master/slave terminology.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- snicker7 6y agoNot true. BitKeeper, which git was modeled after, which used the "master" and "slave" branch terminology.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoYou are mistaken. The terminology came from BitKeeper, which did use the terms in the sense of master and slave repositories: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/... In any case, the git dev responsible for the choice has made their views known: https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577
- ccurrens 6y agoThe git dev responsible for the choice has said it had nothing to do with master/slave: > "master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the original, but viewed from the production process perspective. > A clueless Central European youngster whose command of English was mostly illusory came up with the term, which is why it isn't very obvious... https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441?s=20 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441?s=20 I always thought it meant "master copy"...
- ng12 6y agoThere's a lot of people involved saying otherwise: https://public-inbox.org/git/20200504174548.r3zaftqcq52yhd2u@chatter.i7.local/ https://public-inbox.org/git/20200504174548.r3zaftqcq52yhd2u...
- maushu 6y agoI'm going to need a source for that. I can't find any reference to slave in Bitkeeper documentation.