3 ms·
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 defa
by 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 agoUhhh 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.