On Saturday, May 4, 2019, Bastien Nocera <had...@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 > > <car...@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".
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
