4 ms·

The terminology for repositories is rooted in master/slave relationships, even if we no longer use the "slave" part. The "master" in "master's degree" indicate

• twic 6y ago
  > The terminology for repositories is rooted in master/slave relationships Citation needed, i think. I assume it's rooted in the idea of a master copy.
  • DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
    A "master copy" is final — it is not mutable. The argument that the "master" in repository branches comes from the same terminology requires a sufficiently flexible definition of "master" that I find the claim suspect. On the other hand, consider the fact that in most VCS workflows the alternate branches essentially report to the master branch by periodically merging with it. This is similar to the master/slave terminology in use with disk drive configurations. Edit: A source for support here: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
• seibelj 6y ago
  Are you sure? I have never heard that repo branches were originally called slaves.
  • DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
    Git was meant to replace BitKeeper, which explicitly used master/slave terminology: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
    • 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.
    • throwaway123999 6y ago
      The original creator who made "master" the default branch in git claims it was from "master recording", not "master/slave". https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441
  • jdjdjsjjs 6y ago
    The original creator who made "master" the default branch in git claims it was from "master recording", not "master/slave": https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/127228076028 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/127228076028
• nullsense 6y ago
  >The "master" in "master's degree" indicates that you have mastered a topic Yeah, but only because you slaved away on it for years right?
• MrStonedOne 6y ago
  It means master/apprentice not master/slave. The logic behind the original first use of the name doesn't matter. The way the word "master" is used in the default branch of git repos, is in the context of master/appearance not master/slave. And the way it is actually used is what matters, not the logic of why one person decided to use it.
  • DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
    Uhhh please explain how non-master branches are considered "apprentices" to the master branch. When they contain sufficiently good code, do they get promoted to master? Do we have multiple master branches in a single repository? Of course not. This line of argumentation is silly. The use is most similar to the explicit master/slave terminology used in disk drive configurations, where the "slave" drives report to the "master" drive. In VCS, the alternate (non-master) branches do their own work and periodically "report" to the master branch by merging to it.
    • MrStonedOne 6y ago
      >When they contain sufficiently good code, do they get promoted to master? Yes, by being merged in. In a replication master/slave, the changes on master get replicated to the slave, but the changes on the slave do not go up to the master, as no changes are allowed on the slave that did not come from the master. In this example the slave has no autonomy. In the git example, this is reversed, its rare that feature branches get updated to master, only if they go long enough, you can think of it as the apprentice branch operating with autonomy, learning from the master branch, until it becomes the new jedi master, and the old master retires.
• skunkworker 6y ago
  The master in masters degree comes from the Latin Magister, meaning Teacher, and a title given to graduates when they became able to teach.
  • DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
    Uhhh hm, is this not the same origin in use for master/apprentice relationships? An apprentice cannot themselves have apprentices, but once they have proven their capabilities they are given the title of "master" and granted the ability to take on other apprentices (i.e., teach others). To me those seem practically indistinguishable, but I will admit I did not dig into it far enough to determine whether the true etymology is as closely aligned as I have assumed. I wonder whether you happen to know offhand (if not I will try to look into it further).
    • jhanschoo 6y ago
      Magister gets its meaning from magis, meaning "greater" (in a general and generic sense). e.g. A magis quam B means A is greater than B, A rather than B, etc.
• 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.
• throwaway123999 6y ago
  The original creator who made "master" the default branch in git claims it was from "master recording", not "master/slave": https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/127228076028 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/127228076028
• throwaway123999 6y ago
  The original creator who made "master" the default branch in git claims it was from "master recording", not "master/slave": https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/127228076028 https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/127228076028 If you want to flag this comment, please post why you believe it goes against the HN rules.