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

[drago01 <drago01 gmail com>]

On Saturday, May 4, 2019, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
> 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.

 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master

Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but not in the context of master copy 

"an original version of something from which copies can be made:" .. 

this has no connection with slavery at all. Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master".