3 ms·

I was responding to your very general claim that "the connotation of master in the context of source control..." Here is the bitkeeper documentation[1] saying

I was responding to your very general claim that "the connotation of master in the context of source control..." Here is the bitkeeper documentation[1] saying "we are then going to modify the file on both the master and slave repository and then merge the work." Safe to say that's in the context of source control? If you meant to say "based on how git works..." then sure, that's a more accurate claim. https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/H...

logicalmind 6y ago
I agree that bitkeeper should change from master/slave if they so desire. I'm not aware of anyone using master/slave in terms of git or any other mainstream vcs. And github's specific use of master does not use slave. By changing it, they do seem to imply that they meant it in terms of master/slave though. Branches are not slaves to a master. In standard usage, a branch overwrites the master.