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

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 01:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 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?

I don't have a good answer for this. I didn't find an explanation one
way or the other, but there are uses of "slave copies" that aren't
"copied from master" in Google, but usually not in recording/publishing
fields.

I just don't know whether "slave copy" is implied in "master copy" or
whether it's completely disconnected from the term. If it's completely
disconnected, where does "mastering" come from?

Let me know if you find good etymologies for the verb "master". I
couldn't think of any way that it wouldn't be related to a master copy
and its "slave" copies.