Instead, it's "master" as in "master/proxy". The forked branches are altered copies of an original. We have remastered movies, music and games, and I've never seen anyone complain about the word in this context. Why should version control systems be any different?

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago (8 children)

People think it's "master" as in "master/slave", but forked branches are not "slaves".

I think they're just uncomfortable with the word "master", and that seems completely reasonable to me, especially when they're people from a group which has been subjected to slavery.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah I don't think anyone was called a remaster, different words even if they share the same root

Also master/slave was used in tech for awhile not just for forked branches, a couple examples are https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E88353_01/html/E37855/scsi-slave-9f.html in SCSI interfaces and replication systems like those used with databases https://jira.mariadb.org/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/MDEV-18777

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

The original audio after mastering is also still called a master, but I haven't seen anyone complain about that. And that (as well as the same meaning for other media) is the word that the branch name master came from, so etymology can't really be an argument there (though I also think etymology is terrible reasoning for renaming something in general).

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)