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

On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list

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.

Reference needed. You don't know where it comes from, and you're not
even trying to find where "master copy" takes its name from.

 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".

First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]:

Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses
"master" for its main branch:

But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"?
See the documentation about
master/slave repositories:

But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper:

So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy"
reference, but a straight up master/slave reference.

Did I get anything wrong there?

[1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]