4 ms·

This link shows the problem of using master/slave. I think everyone in this thread is ok with moving away from using those terms. The problem is that the usage

This link shows the problem of using master/slave. I think everyone in this thread is ok with moving away from using those terms. The problem is that the usage of master in terms of git, and github in particular, has nothing to do with master/slave. The word slave isn't even used in standard git or github parlance. What you're saying is that all uses of the word master implies master/slave, which is what people are disagreeing with. In the recording industry, everyone uses the term master to denote the production copy of combined tracks. The tracks that make up a master are not slaves. In the same way that branches that make up a master vcs are not slaves. In git parlance, master is where your builds come from for deployment. And branches are where you work on features. When branches are complete they merge back into master. How does this relate in any way to a master/slave definition? Based on the logic used, I would expect record studios to be moving away from using the word master as well.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> What you're saying is that all uses of the word master implies master/slave, What it implies depends entirely on reader perspective. What I'm suggesting is that with at little or often zero cost we can avoid this whole issue and make some users more comfortable working with us. I could understand the argument if there was some kind of big cost to changing. The company I work with uses the master repo and I'm not advocating internally to change it right now. But for future, I'll use main. Because there is zero reason not to. > In git parlance, master is where your builds come from for deployment. As has been pointed out multiple times on this topic, use of the term in git did not come from the record industry. Git almost certainly uses the term master because Linux kernel developers used Bitkeeper prior to git. And Bitkeeper absolutely used the terminology master/ slave. https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
- logicalmind 6y ago
  Just to make you aware, the actual author of this in git does not say the same thing. While he wishes he had chosen better names (https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577), he did not mean master in terms of master/slave (https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441).
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    He also very clearly agrees that master is a dated term which should be left behind. > I have wished many times I would have named them "main" (and "upstream") instead. > Glad it's happenning https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577?s=20 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577?s=20

ogre_codes 6y ago

> What you're saying is that all uses of the word master implies master/slave, What it implies depends entirely on reader perspective. What I'm suggesting is that with at little or often zero cost we can avoid this whole issue and make some users more comfortable working with us. I could understand the argument if there was some kind of big cost to changing. The company I work with uses the master repo and I'm not advocating internally to change it right now. But for future, I'll use main. Because there is zero reason not to. > In git parlance, master is where your builds come from for deployment. As has been pointed out multiple times on this topic, use of the term in git did not come from the record industry. Git almost certainly uses the term master because Linux kernel developers used Bitkeeper prior to git. And Bitkeeper absolutely used the terminology master/ slave. https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...

logicalmind 6y ago
Just to make you aware, the actual author of this in git does not say the same thing. While he wishes he had chosen better names (https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577), he did not mean master in terms of master/slave (https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441).
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  He also very clearly agrees that master is a dated term which should be left behind. > I have wished many times I would have named them "main" (and "upstream") instead. > Glad it's happenning https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577?s=20 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577?s=20