3 ms·
That's not either, slave is not always a "replica" of the master, only in some contexts. And a master does not even need a slave (like in the github case) - so
by dkarras 6y ago
That's not either, slave is not always a "replica" of the master, only in some contexts.
And a master does not even need a slave (like in the github case) - so git's master is not even like the master (who had slaves) that people are offended about.
- rvnx 6y agoIt's more similar to the meaning of audio master, like a reference copy, not that branches are slave of it.