On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 12:43 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:33 +0100, Richard Hughes via desktop-devel- list wrote:On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 06:21, <mcatanzaro gnome org> wrote:This should go without saying, but master branches are not a reference to slavery, rather to canonicity. The master branch is the canonical branch, the primary copy.This is very much my thinking too. I'd agree with this proposal if every branch forked from master was called slave/hughsie/whatever but in this case the master is clearly referring to the canonical version that the others are derived from. The word "master" isn't a bad word, and doesn't always mean the opposite of slave.It's non-gender neutral, which was mentioned earlier in the thread.
It's not, which was mentioned earlier in the thread. At https://www.google.com/search?q=master+definition there is a definition of various noun, adjective and verb forms of the word "master". The master/slave definition is #1 in the list of nouns. #2 is also gender-specific, as is #5. But #3, #4 and #6 are not gender-specific, and #6 is the word that's used in the context of "master branch". Claiming that "master branch" is gender-specific is just plain wrong.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature