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 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list
wrote:
>  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.

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]:
https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9

Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses
"master" for its main branch:
http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_on_top_of_a_different_changeset

But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"?
See the documentation about
master/slave repositories:
https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223

But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper:
https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2

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:
https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243ff86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41