>Personally I think if you're a die-hard master-slave fan that's weird.
There is no concept of "slave" in git, there are no "slave" branches. That concept has never existed in git's source code. It's master like "master recording".
Ok but where do you think the term comes from? It didn't spawn into common use out of nowhere.
And I'll say - I don't think it matters. It's all stupid bullshit in my eyes. But if it doesn't matter, which it doesn't, then main shouldn't be a problem. In my opinion.
>And I'll say - I don't think it matters. It's all stupid bullshit in my eyes. But if it doesn't matter, which it doesn't, then main shouldn't be a problem. In my opinion.
And I'll say - I don't think it matters. It's all stupid bullshit in my eyes. But if it doesn't matter, which it doesn't, then master shouldn't be a problem. In my opinion.
>Okay I'm not the one who advocated to change master. That's already been done. Now we have people advocating to change BACK to master.
I don't believe that is what's being argued.
>Also really? Audio mastering?
Yes, audio mastering. The developer that created the concept of master branches in git specifically outlined his influence was from the concept of audio mastering (master recordings) [0].
>I don't know if you're bring purposefully obtuse, I hope not, but obviously I meant "master" came from slavery before audio, and audio took that terminology because it was already a popular word.
I don't know if you're bring purposefully delusional, I hope not, but obviously I meant "master" came from master piece before audio, and audio took that terminology because it was already a popular word. Because of, you know, mastering something?
>Yes audio mastering came before git, and slavery came before both. I don't even know why someone would even bother to argue otherwise.
Luckily "master" in this context has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, so your comment is an immaterial non sequitur.
The use of "master" in git has no historical or etymological ties to slavery whatsoever as outlined above. QED.
> The use of "master" in git has no historical or etymological ties to slavery whatsoever as outlined above. QED.
Not the argument I, or anyone else, is making
The use of "master" in Git may remind someone of slavery, which we don't want to do. For their sake. That's the argument actually being made and I think you'll notice it's much harder, if not impossible, to refute. That's the argument you need to target, not whatever high school debate class strawman you can come up with. Anyone can win an argument against an easy, made up argument.
> I'm not the one who advocated to change master. That's already been done.
Only for specific projects. I continue to use "master" for my own projects, because I disagree that the proposed reason to change has merit.
> Now we have people advocating to change BACK to master.
For the existing projects of others? Can you show any examples?
> Also really? Audio mastering?
Disbelief does not constitute an argument.
> And which, pray tell, do you believe came first?
I won't speak for the other poster, but as a matter of simple fact, Git was initially released in 2005, while other VCSes using the term may date as far back as 1969 (https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/21859/); the concept of audio mastering dates to at least the 1920s with the introduction of the microphone (per the Wikipedia link), and in turn presumably has its roots in the idea of a "master copy" of text or artwork to be printed.
There is no concept of "slave" in git, there are no "slave" branches. That concept has never existed in git's source code. It's master like "master recording".