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

On 4 May 2019, at 17:47, drago01 <drago01 gmail com> wrote:

"The term master copy has a unique meaning in art that predates the
modern term. In art, a master copy is the process of drawing or
painting a copy of a another artist's work. It is most common to copy
the work of a master artist, hence the term master copy. This is
considered an essential form of practice. In some cases, master
copies become valuable artworks such as Van Gogh's Flowering Plum
Tree (right) based on Hiroshige's Plum Park in Kameido (left)."


Ha, cool, I've saved this for later reading.

Does not have a connection to slavery in that context at all.

However, the rest of my email explains how this particular explanation
doesn’t matter in the end, because the master in “master branch” is
likely not the one from master copy.

I’ve left it below.

I should note though that, at the end of the day,
it shouldn’t matter whether this “master” comes from the “master/slave”
reference or another. The etymology is not relevant when the emotional impact of a word.... But it comes from 

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]