> 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 t

> 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/...