4 ms·

It's the ubiquitous "master" that everyone is trying to get rid of. There are details in several of the linked articles. TL/DR: The master/slave analogy is prob

It's the ubiquitous "master" that everyone is trying to get rid of. There are details in several of the linked articles. TL/DR: The master/slave analogy is problematic and lots of projects have decided we don't need that terminology around any more, when we can pick less problematic names easily (easier now that there is a config option for it without needing to create a full git init template).

bengale 6y ago
That’s not the type of master that’s it’s referring to. But I’m not sure etymology really matters I guess.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  There's a lot of back and forth on the discussion, and summaries are included in the tops of almost all of the linked articles. In general, the name "master" branch was commonly used in proprietary git predecessor BitKeeper which almost all of the early git developers were familiar with [1] and it did use master in a master/slave meaning. (It had a concept of "slave repositories".) While git has never had a concept of "slave branches" and the meaning may very well have meant to evoke one of the other etymologies, the word was "in the air" because of BitKeeper, which did intend it in a master/slave relationship, so git is guilty by association if not guilty by intent. Which is fine, no one is suggesting git is guilty by intent, they are simply suggesting it is time now to do what early git developers failed to do and question the association (both associations, using the word simply because it was a word commonly thrown around in tech up to that point, and in the association of master with chattel slavery). [1] Bitkeeper was the SCS that the Linux kernel had been using up to that point, and whose dropping of free licenses to open source projects like the Linux kernel was the immediate cause of the creation of both git and Mercurial.
romanoderoma 6y ago
IMHO the only problem is what people wanna see in words. master/slave has been with us since forever (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23969906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23969906) and describes a relationship between two entities where one is the controller and the other is controlled, in many religions (including the most popular one) there is still a master God (or more than one) and believers are slave to God (with the capital G) But in Git there is simply a "master" branch, there is no master/slave relationship, there is no hierarchy enforced, branches are just copies that diverged from the master copy, master as in master recording or "the source from which all copies will be produced" I honestly have a hard time understanding what's problematic with it.
- sildur 6y ago
  Americans have issues. A lot of issues to be honest. Add to the mix their fervor about what they think is right with their utter disregard about what the rest of the world has to say about it, and you will get an interesting recipe for neocolonialism.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Not all Americans, just a very passionate, vocal subset of Americans
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  Bitkeeper, which early git developers were familiar with, did use master in a master/slave relationship. While git does not enforce such "hierarchy", there remains an association (both in how we use the word outside of the context of git as well as historically in how the word was used by predecessor SCSes). > master/slave has been with us since forever "Tradition" or "we've always done it that way" is not a great excuse, especially when part of the problem is systemic papercuts. It's not surprising that systemic issues rely a lot on "tradition" to do their dirty work. Whether or not you agree with the particular etymology/association being questioned, the very point of questioning it is whether or not this "tradition" is worth the pain of systemic papercuts. We've got a lot of other useful words, we don't have to keep using ones that cause papercuts just because of "tradition" (whether or not you personally suffer from those papercuts).
  - noptd 6y ago
    > bitkeeper This was refuted by the person who named it- https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 This argument comes off as very condescending in a soft bigotry of low expectations-type of way, given there's nothing else within git that even hints to master being related to master-slave terminology.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > especially when part of the problem is systemic papercuts I'm sorry for slavery in US, but slavery in US is hardly the only example of slavery in history. master/slave describes more than just a hundred years of slavery in United States It also describes thousands of years of religious beliefs, for example. > the very point of questioning it is whether or not this "tradition" is worth the pain of systemic papercuts Not to sound harsh, but 5 billion people are ok with it. It's a linguistic problem for a small minority of the population that speaks English as a native language and super charge words meaning. Take for example the word servomotor. A servomotor is > French servo-moteur, from Latin servus slave, servant + French -o- + moteur motor, from Latin motor one that moves In Italian it is "servo motore", servo is the exact translation of slave. Why is servomotor ok, why is "I'm a slave to Jesus" or "God is my master" ok, but master branch is not? I'm simply curious of why some people can't let things go...
sildur 6y ago
In the rest of the world is not as problematic, as we associate master with teacher. But we are used to America forcing their culture down our throats. Like they did when tried to force down their hatred for the police on us. So, another one to the list. It would be nice if some day they tried to consider how the rest of the world sees things. For a change.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  > In the rest of the world is not as problematic, as we associate master with teacher. Every word has more than one association. The argument is not that every association for the word is negative, but that one association is extremely negative, and we have the ability to use words that have fewer negative associations, so why shouldn't we use words with fewer negative associations? That extremely negative association certainly isn't unique to the American past either, and if you think you are immune you are likely ignoring your own past. It's maybe being promoted by Americans because Americans see it as a more recent part of their past, still are wary of scars left behind from it. (Though even that isn't uniquely American; South African Apartheid is another easy example of recent history.)
  - sildur 6y ago
    Ah, yes. The old “if you don’t think like me you are wrong.” We are also used to that condescending attitude. Very American. But, as surprising as may be, there are other cultures in this world. In mine, master is a word associated to teacher. You see the issue as more recent because it is happening right now. The scars are still bleeding. Maybe this is why you all overreact so much to simple words. To overcompensate.
    - WorldMaker 6y ago
      I'm not claiming anyone is wrong, I did not say that anywhere, and I'm not forcing anything. I'm simply suggesting there are alternatives. It's not an American thing, and it isn't overcompensating for anything. I don't even feel that strongly about this. Clearly a lot of people do. It tells me a lot more about this thread in the way it was downvoted where I was simply trying to explain the issue, it's history, and the options available and a lot of people apparently brought emotions to the discussion that I do not understand where they came from. Do whatever you like. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not telling anyone what to do. I was merely explaining the controversy. I give up. I do not understand what all this hate is about. I'm just the messenger, but I guess I can take all the shots.

bengale 6y ago

That’s not the type of master that’s it’s referring to. But I’m not sure etymology really matters I guess.

WorldMaker 6y ago
There's a lot of back and forth on the discussion, and summaries are included in the tops of almost all of the linked articles. In general, the name "master" branch was commonly used in proprietary git predecessor BitKeeper which almost all of the early git developers were familiar with [1] and it did use master in a master/slave meaning. (It had a concept of "slave repositories".) While git has never had a concept of "slave branches" and the meaning may very well have meant to evoke one of the other etymologies, the word was "in the air" because of BitKeeper, which did intend it in a master/slave relationship, so git is guilty by association if not guilty by intent. Which is fine, no one is suggesting git is guilty by intent, they are simply suggesting it is time now to do what early git developers failed to do and question the association (both associations, using the word simply because it was a word commonly thrown around in tech up to that point, and in the association of master with chattel slavery). [1] Bitkeeper was the SCS that the Linux kernel had been using up to that point, and whose dropping of free licenses to open source projects like the Linux kernel was the immediate cause of the creation of both git and Mercurial.

romanoderoma 6y ago

IMHO the only problem is what people wanna see in words. master/slave has been with us since forever (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23969906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23969906) and describes a relationship between two entities where one is the controller and the other is controlled, in many religions (including the most popular one) there is still a master God (or more than one) and believers are slave to God (with the capital G) But in Git there is simply a "master" branch, there is no master/slave relationship, there is no hierarchy enforced, branches are just copies that diverged from the master copy, master as in master recording or "the source from which all copies will be produced" I honestly have a hard time understanding what's problematic with it.

sildur 6y ago
Americans have issues. A lot of issues to be honest. Add to the mix their fervor about what they think is right with their utter disregard about what the rest of the world has to say about it, and you will get an interesting recipe for neocolonialism.
- umvi 6y ago
  Not all Americans, just a very passionate, vocal subset of Americans
WorldMaker 6y ago
Bitkeeper, which early git developers were familiar with, did use master in a master/slave relationship. While git does not enforce such "hierarchy", there remains an association (both in how we use the word outside of the context of git as well as historically in how the word was used by predecessor SCSes). > master/slave has been with us since forever "Tradition" or "we've always done it that way" is not a great excuse, especially when part of the problem is systemic papercuts. It's not surprising that systemic issues rely a lot on "tradition" to do their dirty work. Whether or not you agree with the particular etymology/association being questioned, the very point of questioning it is whether or not this "tradition" is worth the pain of systemic papercuts. We've got a lot of other useful words, we don't have to keep using ones that cause papercuts just because of "tradition" (whether or not you personally suffer from those papercuts).
- noptd 6y ago
  > bitkeeper This was refuted by the person who named it- https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://mobile.twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 This argument comes off as very condescending in a soft bigotry of low expectations-type of way, given there's nothing else within git that even hints to master being related to master-slave terminology.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > especially when part of the problem is systemic papercuts I'm sorry for slavery in US, but slavery in US is hardly the only example of slavery in history. master/slave describes more than just a hundred years of slavery in United States It also describes thousands of years of religious beliefs, for example. > the very point of questioning it is whether or not this "tradition" is worth the pain of systemic papercuts Not to sound harsh, but 5 billion people are ok with it. It's a linguistic problem for a small minority of the population that speaks English as a native language and super charge words meaning. Take for example the word servomotor. A servomotor is > French servo-moteur, from Latin servus slave, servant + French -o- + moteur motor, from Latin motor one that moves In Italian it is "servo motore", servo is the exact translation of slave. Why is servomotor ok, why is "I'm a slave to Jesus" or "God is my master" ok, but master branch is not? I'm simply curious of why some people can't let things go...

sildur 6y ago

In the rest of the world is not as problematic, as we associate master with teacher. But we are used to America forcing their culture down our throats. Like they did when tried to force down their hatred for the police on us. So, another one to the list. It would be nice if some day they tried to consider how the rest of the world sees things. For a change.

WorldMaker 6y ago
> In the rest of the world is not as problematic, as we associate master with teacher. Every word has more than one association. The argument is not that every association for the word is negative, but that one association is extremely negative, and we have the ability to use words that have fewer negative associations, so why shouldn't we use words with fewer negative associations? That extremely negative association certainly isn't unique to the American past either, and if you think you are immune you are likely ignoring your own past. It's maybe being promoted by Americans because Americans see it as a more recent part of their past, still are wary of scars left behind from it. (Though even that isn't uniquely American; South African Apartheid is another easy example of recent history.)
- sildur 6y ago
  Ah, yes. The old “if you don’t think like me you are wrong.” We are also used to that condescending attitude. Very American. But, as surprising as may be, there are other cultures in this world. In mine, master is a word associated to teacher. You see the issue as more recent because it is happening right now. The scars are still bleeding. Maybe this is why you all overreact so much to simple words. To overcompensate.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    I'm not claiming anyone is wrong, I did not say that anywhere, and I'm not forcing anything. I'm simply suggesting there are alternatives. It's not an American thing, and it isn't overcompensating for anything. I don't even feel that strongly about this. Clearly a lot of people do. It tells me a lot more about this thread in the way it was downvoted where I was simply trying to explain the issue, it's history, and the options available and a lot of people apparently brought emotions to the discussion that I do not understand where they came from. Do whatever you like. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not telling anyone what to do. I was merely explaining the controversy. I give up. I do not understand what all this hate is about. I'm just the messenger, but I guess I can take all the shots.