Re: Replacing "master" reference in git branch names (was Re: Proposal: Replace all references to master/slave in GNOME modules)

[Matthias Klumpp <matthias tenstral net>]

Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Carmen Bianca Bakker
<carmen carmenbianca eu>:
> Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis:
> > [...]
> > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same
> > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one
> > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a
> > "master/slave" relationship.
> >
> > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master
> > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it
> > were "slave copies".
>
> This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of
> logic for me. I can get on board with that.
> [...]

Is this really true though? I never once heard of a "slave copy", so I
just googled the word combination, yielding only 7.130 results, none
of which that I skimmed through relate to an actual "slave copy" as in
"copied from master". All seem to deal with copying to
slave(-machines) or copies that slaves hold.
For comparison, "master copy" yields >> 542.000.000 results. So either
the term slave copy does not exist at all, or it is very fringe and
has never been widely used or used recently.
Thinking about it, a 1:1 copy from master is still a master in its own
right and completely identical to the pristine data it was copied
from. So there is really do dependency relationship here, as you would
normally have in a traditional master<->slave pattern. All master
copies are equal in their "master-ness". So, having a slave copy makes
no logical sense to me.
tl;dr: Is there some further reading on the usage of slave copy in
projects and its common etymology with master copy?

Cheers,
    Matthias

-- 
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/