3 ms·

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://new

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...
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    Paul Graham published an essay recently which describes these kind of people as "aggressively conventionally-minded": http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html Essentially there are some people who will follow rules and trends without questioning them. Among those there are some who will actively seek to punish those who do not follow the rules. This master/slave thing is a new rule born out of guilt and virtue signalling. This comes from the fact that some people see themselves as genuinely superior to others and this makes them uncomfortable. They virtue signal in an attempt to fight against this feeling, rather than just accepting what may be true, moving on, and continuing to be a good person. It's a phenomenon that has been observed in many contexts. The most vocal homophobes are often homosexual themselves. The most vocal religious devotees often have the strongest doubts.

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...
- globular-toast 6y ago
  Paul Graham published an essay recently which describes these kind of people as "aggressively conventionally-minded": http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html Essentially there are some people who will follow rules and trends without questioning them. Among those there are some who will actively seek to punish those who do not follow the rules. This master/slave thing is a new rule born out of guilt and virtue signalling. This comes from the fact that some people see themselves as genuinely superior to others and this makes them uncomfortable. They virtue signal in an attempt to fight against this feeling, rather than just accepting what may be true, moving on, and continuing to be a good person. It's a phenomenon that has been observed in many contexts. The most vocal homophobes are often homosexual themselves. The most vocal religious devotees often have the strongest doubts.