Doing some thread grave digging. On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 15:18 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > 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?
A year later, and it turns out I was wrong, but still on the right path. The email I'm replying to has been quoted in various online discussions so I thought it would be best for me to update and correct those statements, if they were ever to be used as references. I emailed Linus Torvalds recently (the original author of git, though very quickly not the main developer), and he told me that it was unlikely that the "git master" branch name was influenced by BitKeeper, and that "master" was "fairly standard naming" for this sort of thing and "more likely to be influenced by the CVS master repository". Petr Baudis is apparently the person that came up with the use of "master" and "origin" in git, https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577: " I picked the names "master" (and "origin") in the early Git tooling back in 2005. [...] I have wished many times I would have named them "main" (and "upstream") instead. " and https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441: " "master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the original, but viewed from the production process perspective. " I wanted to conclude that, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter where the name comes from (something that was touched upon a number of times in the thread). The fact that it has bad connotations, or inspires dread for individuals and whole communities, is reason enough to change it. It's especially the case when the term used is pretty inappropriate to describe what it is, and the software is flexible enough that we can very easily change that term without a lot of disruption. I think that we would do well as a project to make that change for all the repositories that we host, so we minimise that differences in our own project. If anyone wants some inspiration as to what they can do for their personal projects, codespell can help you follow best practices using the "usage" dictionary: https://twitter.com/hadessuk/status/1271371994672566273 which will be available as a Fedora update soon: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-12bd755a7c There are also tools to rename the main branch in your GitHub projects, ahead of GitHub doing that by default: https://github.com/dfm/rename-github-default-branch Cheers > [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243ff86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41 > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
