4 ms·
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. I
by 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 agoNo, the etymology is master/slave. It was inherited from Bitkeeper, which had master repositories and slave repositories.
- iamdamian 4y agoDo 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.