4 ms·

master in the git sense is not master/slave.

acdha 6y ago
It’s not clear that this is true: if were around when Git started, it was influenced heavily by BitKeeper and that did use master/slave: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  There are no slave branches in Git though.
  - acdha 6y ago
    Yes, but the point is that the history isn’t as clear cut as it might seem. I generally prefer other branch names anyway which tell how you use them - e.g. does “master” mean development actually happens there, where code is integrated for testing, the ready-to-release code (which is what the image/audio usage of master would imply), etc. Using terms like “develop”, “integration”, “release”, etc. make your project conventions more apparent.
- JimDabell 6y ago
  It’s totally clear. Here is the person who chose the term "master" explaining that he chose it in relation to the term "master recording": > "master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the original, but viewed from the production process perspective. — https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 The idea that it is related to master/slave was guesswork based on the relation between Git and BitKeeper. But Git doesn’t have slaves and the guess was wrong.
  - acdha 6y ago
    … and if you read further in that same thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272958618124595201 https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272958618124595201 https://mobile.twitter.com/localheinz/status/1273302245002686464 https://mobile.twitter.com/localheinz/status/127330224500268... Again, I wouldn’t blame anyone for following use which is common in the field. What disappoints me is that some people are so strongly opposed to using more accurate terms when they’re not even being asked to do the small amount of work. Maybe this is innocent, maybe it’s not, we could fix it now and never have to spend time on this conversation again.
    - JimDabell 6y ago
      Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I find it easy to miss things in Twitter threads. > What disappoints me is that some people are so strongly opposed to using more accurate terms when they’re not even being asked to do the small amount of work. > we could fix it now and never have to spend time on this conversation again. I really hate this perception that changing master to main is easy. There’s 15 years of documentation out there that uses master. If it’s anything like other legacy documentation, it’ll take another ten years for that documentation to fall out of use. In the meantime, there’s tonnes of young, inexperienced developers who will get stuck on this. Haven’t you ever seen a junior developer panic, think they are screwing up, and question their self-worth because they feel like they can’t even follow simple step-by-step instructions, when the problem is the documentation they are following is wrong? The right way of doing this would be to coördinate via the main Git project and have a plan for what to do with all the existing documentation out there. As it stands, people unilaterally charged forward with it thoughtlessly, and are going to cause a great deal of practical pain for inexperienced developers, many of whom will be black. You really think triggering imposter syndrome in them is harmless?
    - DarthGhandi 6y ago
      > never have to spend time on this conversation again There'll always be another word or someone else offended by things of zero consequence. Find it astonishing if you truly believe this is last word that needs to be "fixed". It's perpetually tiring.
    - 6y ago
drusepth 6y ago
I've always been under the impression that it's master as in "master copy".
- pravus 6y ago
  Audio engineering uses the term "master" for the source of highest fidelity "copy"ing...

It’s not clear that this is true: if were around when Git started, it was influenced heavily by BitKeeper and that did use master/slave: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...

_-david-_ 6y ago
There are no slave branches in Git though.
- acdha 6y ago
  Yes, but the point is that the history isn’t as clear cut as it might seem. I generally prefer other branch names anyway which tell how you use them - e.g. does “master” mean development actually happens there, where code is integrated for testing, the ready-to-release code (which is what the image/audio usage of master would imply), etc. Using terms like “develop”, “integration”, “release”, etc. make your project conventions more apparent.
JimDabell 6y ago
It’s totally clear. Here is the person who chose the term "master" explaining that he chose it in relation to the term "master recording": > "master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the original, but viewed from the production process perspective. — https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 The idea that it is related to master/slave was guesswork based on the relation between Git and BitKeeper. But Git doesn’t have slaves and the guess was wrong.
- acdha 6y ago
  … and if you read further in that same thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272958618124595201 https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272958618124595201 https://mobile.twitter.com/localheinz/status/1273302245002686464 https://mobile.twitter.com/localheinz/status/127330224500268... Again, I wouldn’t blame anyone for following use which is common in the field. What disappoints me is that some people are so strongly opposed to using more accurate terms when they’re not even being asked to do the small amount of work. Maybe this is innocent, maybe it’s not, we could fix it now and never have to spend time on this conversation again.
  - JimDabell 6y ago
    Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I find it easy to miss things in Twitter threads. > What disappoints me is that some people are so strongly opposed to using more accurate terms when they’re not even being asked to do the small amount of work. > we could fix it now and never have to spend time on this conversation again. I really hate this perception that changing master to main is easy. There’s 15 years of documentation out there that uses master. If it’s anything like other legacy documentation, it’ll take another ten years for that documentation to fall out of use. In the meantime, there’s tonnes of young, inexperienced developers who will get stuck on this. Haven’t you ever seen a junior developer panic, think they are screwing up, and question their self-worth because they feel like they can’t even follow simple step-by-step instructions, when the problem is the documentation they are following is wrong? The right way of doing this would be to coördinate via the main Git project and have a plan for what to do with all the existing documentation out there. As it stands, people unilaterally charged forward with it thoughtlessly, and are going to cause a great deal of practical pain for inexperienced developers, many of whom will be black. You really think triggering imposter syndrome in them is harmless?
  - DarthGhandi 6y ago
    > never have to spend time on this conversation again There'll always be another word or someone else offended by things of zero consequence. Find it astonishing if you truly believe this is last word that needs to be "fixed". It's perpetually tiring.
  - 6y ago

drusepth 6y ago

I've always been under the impression that it's master as in "master copy".

pravus 6y ago
Audio engineering uses the term "master" for the source of highest fidelity "copy"ing...