3 ms·
> Git's usage is clearly more like "golden master" in the recording sense -- the original from which other copies are made. Maybe it's easy to spin this way, b
by DonaldPShimoda 6y ago
> Git's usage is clearly more like "golden master" in the recording sense -- the original from which other copies are made.
Maybe it's easy to spin this way, but that's not where git's terminology comes from. It originated in a system meant to migrate away from BitKeeper, which did use the master/slave terminology. Citation: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/msg00066.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
- kobberholm 6y agoThis is addressed in the comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26499512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26499512 In short; no there is no master/slave terminology in Git. The person commenting on the Gnome mailing list was mistaken.
- nitrogen 6y agoHas Linus or another early Git developer commented on this? If not, what matters is how people actually use Git today, to the extent that it should matter at all relative to other more significant things.
- onetimeusename 6y agoyes[1], but it doesn't really matter because even if the intention is not to be a "master/slave" reference, people will still say it is offensive. So therefore it makes sense that banning other terms like "master of science" or "master record" would also be consistent here. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200706203737/https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 https://web.archive.org/web/20200706203737/https://twitter.c...