3 ms·
No, the etymology is master/slave. It was inherited from Bitkeeper, which had master repositories and slave repositories.
by regularfry 4y ago
No, 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.