3 ms·

Don't forget Master -> Main for git.

leeoniya 4y ago
i wonder if the recording industry also knee-jerk-renamed "master record" and "mastering", since the meaning is the same in both contexts. or if "masterclass" and "karate master" will have the same fate. :eyeroll: whitelist/blacklist has an unfortunate recent history, but black/white dualism preceeds it by a good margin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism
GuB-42 4y ago
I actually think the move away from master/slave terminology is a good thing, not because of the association with human slavery, but because the term "master" is a bit too broad. For example, in a database, the master is usually the running copy while the slave is the backup. First, it doesn't match the idea of a master and a slave, normally, the master commands and the slave works, a (human) slave doesn't sit idle and take the role of the master when he is not available. This is a backup, not a slave. In the context of process execution, the parallel with slavery is more clear. The master process controls the slave processes completely while they do the work. Interestingly, these are often called "workers" even though it is the closest thing we have to slaves in computing. In the context of a bus, the master can either simply be the #1 device, while the slave is #2, no real hierarchy here. In other cases the master is the controller and decides which device (sometimes called a slave) talks and which one listens. There is a clear hierarchical relationship but it is a bit different from the master/worker relationship of processes. And now the "master" branch in git, which is actually more like a trunk (SVN term) or default (Mercurial term). Rethinking the "master" term forces people to think of more precise terms, in most cases, "master" is just lazy.
- iamdamian 4y ago
  Isn’t the “master branch” in git analogous to the “master copy” in other industries? I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a reference to a “slave” branch in git. If that’s the case, should we really be limping it into the current master/slave renaming zeitgeist? If so, then should we not talk of mastery at all, and why? It seems to be a fairly precise and useful term.
  - regularfry 4y ago
    No, the etymology is master/slave. It was inherited from Bitkeeper, which had master repositories and slave repositories.
    - iamdamian 4y ago
      Do you have a source to prove this? I’ve only seen speculation on a few mailing threads. I see no reference to “slave” in git, and the most common interpretation I see of git’s “master” is as “master copy”, a useful mental model. I recognize that the common interpretation is distinct from its etymology, but given the nature of language, it’s probably the more important bit.
googlryas 4y ago
Ironically, git itself is a derogatory, ableist word, but I suppose that is too central to let it be rebranded.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

i wonder if the recording industry also knee-jerk-renamed "master record" and "mastering", since the meaning is the same in both contexts. or if "masterclass" and "karate master" will have the same fate. :eyeroll: whitelist/blacklist has an unfortunate recent history, but black/white dualism preceeds it by a good margin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-and-white_dualism

GuB-42 4y ago

I actually think the move away from master/slave terminology is a good thing, not because of the association with human slavery, but because the term "master" is a bit too broad. For example, in a database, the master is usually the running copy while the slave is the backup. First, it doesn't match the idea of a master and a slave, normally, the master commands and the slave works, a (human) slave doesn't sit idle and take the role of the master when he is not available. This is a backup, not a slave. In the context of process execution, the parallel with slavery is more clear. The master process controls the slave processes completely while they do the work. Interestingly, these are often called "workers" even though it is the closest thing we have to slaves in computing. In the context of a bus, the master can either simply be the #1 device, while the slave is #2, no real hierarchy here. In other cases the master is the controller and decides which device (sometimes called a slave) talks and which one listens. There is a clear hierarchical relationship but it is a bit different from the master/worker relationship of processes. And now the "master" branch in git, which is actually more like a trunk (SVN term) or default (Mercurial term). Rethinking the "master" term forces people to think of more precise terms, in most cases, "master" is just lazy.

iamdamian 4y ago
Isn’t the “master branch” in git analogous to the “master copy” in other industries? I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a reference to a “slave” branch in git. If that’s the case, should we really be limping it into the current master/slave renaming zeitgeist? If so, then should we not talk of mastery at all, and why? It seems to be a fairly precise and useful term.
- regularfry 4y ago
  No, the etymology is master/slave. It was inherited from Bitkeeper, which had master repositories and slave repositories.
  - iamdamian 4y ago
    Do you have a source to prove this? I’ve only seen speculation on a few mailing threads. I see no reference to “slave” in git, and the most common interpretation I see of git’s “master” is as “master copy”, a useful mental model. I recognize that the common interpretation is distinct from its etymology, but given the nature of language, it’s probably the more important bit.

googlryas 4y ago

Ironically, git itself is a derogatory, ableist word, but I suppose that is too central to let it be rebranded.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]