3 ms·
Someone else linked this historical document to show that the words in Git has indeed to do with a master-slave relationship: https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/b
by Y-bar 11mo ago
Someone else linked this historical document to show that the words in Git has indeed to do with a master-slave relationship: https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/H...
But as I said elsewhere, I do not care about that a lot. However, I do think those words are bad for other reasons because they do not illustrate the _actual_ role and relationships of branches in a VCS in a _good way_. If the master branch is not actually ruling over other branches, then it should be named something else, like "primary" as far as I am concerned.
- ret2plt 11mo agoLanguage is in constant flux. If a word has a remote historical connection to master/slave in a precursor project people nowadays don't even know, and people invent a "folk etymology" comparing it to a master record, do you really gain anything worthwhile from insisting on the history?
- ret2plt 11mo agoPS: about the role in git: I don't feel that strongly about it, but I think master is somewhat more descriptive. The master branch contains the most up-to-date version of the source code, so e.g. if I'm working on a feature branch and a colleague pushes a bug fix that affects me into master, I need to merge/rebase to get the latest changes into my feature branch. So, while the master branch doesn't "rule" the feature branches, there is still the implication that changes to master should find there way into the feature branches at some point, which I think main doesn't convey that clearly.