5 ms·

'master' branch is like a master recording, an original from which copies can be made off. I don't have a Master degree in English, but it feels someone is terr

'master' branch is like a master recording, an original from which copies can be made off. I don't have a Master degree in English, but it feels someone is terribly confused.

echelon 6y ago
I feel like we tried to fix "master" and "slave" in replication terminology (which we should) and it leaked into areas where the semantics were entirely different. "Whitelist" and "blacklist" are also terms that deserve attention, more so than "master branch". The "master" branch is the "master" record. The official copy. The entertainment industry "remasters" their source recordings. The original Star Wars gets remastered frequently. I don't think that the recording and entertainment industries are going to change these terms, because I don't think they're racially charged in the context in which they're defined and used. There's literally no parallel. In our industry, we have other suspect things called master, which is why it stands out. In any case, I think it's impossible to rethink this decision now. Walking it back feels icky and political, and we should always err on the side of inclusion anyway.
- activitypea 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure Git calls the default branch master in reference to a master recording.
Joeri 6y ago
The naming is not accurate though. Many projects branch off from “development” and periodically merge into master. Calling it main more aptly describes the role it has.
- hinkley 6y ago
  If anything the commit tree structure of git warrants “trunk” far more than ever made sense in subversion.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
That is not why it’s called that: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
- ewanm89 6y ago
  Ah, there is a logical fallacy there. That logical fallacy that is just because they reused the same bitkeeper word that they took it from there AND are using it in the same sense. Ultimately this is a strawman, you are putting Bitkeeper's practice and arguments onto git. Slave is never used once in git documentation, never has been and never will be: https://git-scm.com/search/results?search=slave https://git-scm.com/search/results?search=slave
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    That’s fair, but the OP’s conclusion had no supporting premises at all. Ultimately this is a digression; this change is being made not because of the intentions of the authors of git, but to be considerate of users of GitHub.
    - ballenf 6y ago
      > to be considerate of users of GitHub Which users?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- throwaway123999 6y ago
  Wrong, it was indeed from "master recording": https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 That tweet is from the original creator who made "master" the default branch in git.
roenxi 6y ago
That gets to what might be the real issue here. This is a change of something that has no relevance to the master/slave debate. It seems possible that it is being driven by someone who is (a) not that clever and (b) making ego driven decisions. I think that might be what is annoying people. The whitelist/blacklist thing is a bit of a no-brainer, that one should change. Master/slave is debatable, because it isn't actually discriminatory. But whatever, one for the debate. Master git branches are back in no-brainer territory as something that didn't need to change.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > The whitelist/blacklist thing is a bit of a no-brainer, that one should change. Why though, it has nothing to do with skin color. Black and white, grey area, there are lots of things involving these colors, but they aren't about skin color, they're about opposites. And there are plenty of other things including color, e.g. black hole, white vest, carte blanche, but they're not about skin color either.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    White & black skin are, practically, inherent qualities that a person can't really do much about. The argument that associating linking the properties to 'good' and 'bad' could make people feel uncomfortable makes sense to me. People (as evidenced by today's headline) do struggle to keep things separate in their head.
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      > "The argument that associating linking the properties to 'good' and 'bad' could make people feel uncomfortable makes sense to me. " Then advocates of this should also be campaigning to stop using yellow as the color to indicate warnings, since it's insensitive to Asian-Americans. But we all know they aren't going to.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        Asians aren't yellow though.

'master' branch is like a master recording, an original from which copies can be made off. I don't have a Master degree in English, but it feels someone is terribly confused.

echelon 6y ago

I feel like we tried to fix "master" and "slave" in replication terminology (which we should) and it leaked into areas where the semantics were entirely different. "Whitelist" and "blacklist" are also terms that deserve attention, more so than "master branch". The "master" branch is the "master" record. The official copy. The entertainment industry "remasters" their source recordings. The original Star Wars gets remastered frequently. I don't think that the recording and entertainment industries are going to change these terms, because I don't think they're racially charged in the context in which they're defined and used. There's literally no parallel. In our industry, we have other suspect things called master, which is why it stands out. In any case, I think it's impossible to rethink this decision now. Walking it back feels icky and political, and we should always err on the side of inclusion anyway.

activitypea 6y ago
I'm pretty sure Git calls the default branch master in reference to a master recording.

Joeri 6y ago

The naming is not accurate though. Many projects branch off from “development” and periodically merge into master. Calling it main more aptly describes the role it has.

hinkley 6y ago
If anything the commit tree structure of git warrants “trunk” far more than ever made sense in subversion.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

That is not why it’s called that: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...

ewanm89 6y ago
Ah, there is a logical fallacy there. That logical fallacy that is just because they reused the same bitkeeper word that they took it from there AND are using it in the same sense. Ultimately this is a strawman, you are putting Bitkeeper's practice and arguments onto git. Slave is never used once in git documentation, never has been and never will be: https://git-scm.com/search/results?search=slave https://git-scm.com/search/results?search=slave
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  That’s fair, but the OP’s conclusion had no supporting premises at all. Ultimately this is a digression; this change is being made not because of the intentions of the authors of git, but to be considerate of users of GitHub.
  - ballenf 6y ago
    > to be considerate of users of GitHub Which users?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
throwaway123999 6y ago
Wrong, it was indeed from "master recording": https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 That tweet is from the original creator who made "master" the default branch in git.

roenxi 6y ago

That gets to what might be the real issue here. This is a change of something that has no relevance to the master/slave debate. It seems possible that it is being driven by someone who is (a) not that clever and (b) making ego driven decisions. I think that might be what is annoying people. The whitelist/blacklist thing is a bit of a no-brainer, that one should change. Master/slave is debatable, because it isn't actually discriminatory. But whatever, one for the debate. Master git branches are back in no-brainer territory as something that didn't need to change.

luckylion 6y ago
> The whitelist/blacklist thing is a bit of a no-brainer, that one should change. Why though, it has nothing to do with skin color. Black and white, grey area, there are lots of things involving these colors, but they aren't about skin color, they're about opposites. And there are plenty of other things including color, e.g. black hole, white vest, carte blanche, but they're not about skin color either.
- roenxi 6y ago
  White & black skin are, practically, inherent qualities that a person can't really do much about. The argument that associating linking the properties to 'good' and 'bad' could make people feel uncomfortable makes sense to me. People (as evidenced by today's headline) do struggle to keep things separate in their head.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "The argument that associating linking the properties to 'good' and 'bad' could make people feel uncomfortable makes sense to me. " Then advocates of this should also be campaigning to stop using yellow as the color to indicate warnings, since it's insensitive to Asian-Americans. But we all know they aren't going to.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Asians aren't yellow though.