“Master of Science” is simply a use of a different meaning of the word. If anyone is suggesting to not use “master” across the board, even in the sense of “being really good at something,” they can shove off.
While the “master” branch is clearly using master in the sense that it asserts control of the other branches in some way.
So IMO, explaining could be done by pointing at the dictionary.
I was going to stay out of this, but I'll add that I agree entirely with this.
Master/Slave flip-flops, on the other hand, are named for behavior closer to the connotation github is trying to avoid.
And, I'll also add, as a young White child who built and played with master/slave flip-flops, it never occurred to me to associate it with people, slavery, or racism. Maybe if I had been Black it would have been different.
> Git's usage is clearly more like "golden master" in the recording sense -- the original from which other copies are made.
Maybe it's easy to spin this way, but that's not where git's terminology comes from. It originated in a system meant to migrate away from BitKeeper, which did use the master/slave terminology. Citation: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
Has Linus or another early Git developer commented on this? If not, what matters is how people actually use Git today, to the extent that it should matter at all relative to other more significant things.
yes[1], but it doesn't really matter because even if the intention is not to be a "master/slave" reference, people will still say it is offensive. So therefore it makes sense that banning other terms like "master of science" or "master record" would also be consistent here.
EDIT: So confusing to me why this was voted down. Please help.
I'm just speculating here -- HN doesn't even allow downvotes to direct responses, so it's not me -- a little more tie-in to the thread might help understand the context and relevance of a music video (HN tends to prefer text over video, and prose/exposition over music). Or maybe there's a bot that downvotes anything with certain words. Or maybe there are one or two people who happened to accidentally downvote because the button was lined up with their thumb when they were scrolling on their phones.
Additionally, I don't think sense 29 actually makes sense here. A "master copy" is immutable. Once somebody burns a master record, that's it — you're done. You make copies from that one because it is deemed "correct" in some sense.
But git branches are not immutable; they are able to be added to at any point. The master branch can be interpreted as collating the work done by all of the other branches: non-master branches do some work, then it gets merged back to `master`. Which means... the master branch is coordinating work done in other branches. And, in many git workflows, work on the master branch itself is discouraged, meaning almost all work is done in separate branches and then the master branch is used to accumulate that work, and is the main reference point to see "the current state of things". I don't think it's a stretch to see why the master/slave relationship seems a more fitting sense of "master" than "master copy".
> Git's terminology descends from BitKeeper, which was explicitly using master/slave
That GNOME mailing list post was retracted the next year[0].
I wrote a summary of the history[1] for Git Rev News, the git developers newsletter. In short, the usage didn't come from BitKeeper, and was intended to mean 'master copy'.
After the article was published, Aaron Kushner from BitKeeper reached out and gave me some more history on the usage of 'slave repository' in that one particular spot in BitKeeper[2]: it was a presentation for a client that was already using master/slave terminology and so the same terms were used in the presentation.
Same meaning, but different context of use is what I think you meant. The context is key in all these discussions. No one thinks 'master' means 'owner of human (black) slaves' in 'Master of Science' any more than they do for Github, yet here we are.
You're making unproven assumptions about which meaning applies to what.
Quick search of definitions of master include (paraphrased slightly for brevity):
-(n) person with people working for them
-(n) person in charge
-(adj) showing great skill
-(adj) main/principal
-(v) to acquire complete knowledge/skill in something
-(v) to overcome (as in one's emotions)
Depending on whether it had a more literal or more abstract genesis, I could see almost all of those variants apply to Master of Science.
Similarly, for master branch -- it could easily be 4 of the 6.
Now add in the fact that these meanings change over time, that they can be coined organically vs. explicitly, and that different early adopters can themselves have different connotations of the meaning in mind.
TLDR: There's nothing simple or clear about the case for removal.
No that's not how it works. You're making up definitions and applying your own meaning. This sort of thinking breaks language entirely. It's along the same lines of saying there are multiple genders and you can make up any on the spot and apply them whenever you feel like. Language doesn't work anymore if you do this.
Expecting others to know what's happening in your own head and getting offended when they don't is absolute insanity. This is why we have language standards.
Language is an entirely human creation with "standards" and definitions that have been changing constantly since humans began creating it. With the internet the english dictionary has been growing at an almost exponential rate.
Not knowing how language works and being mad that it changes LIKE IT'S ALWAYS DONE is absolute insanity. Not being able to handle change is a common problem for a lot of humans, but it doesn't mean the change is at fault, it's your ability to cope with differences as they emerge.
"Language is an entirely human creation with "standards" and definitions that have been changing constantly since humans began creating it."
Your point? Those changes happen as people in the ENTIRE society agree on them. They don't happen because a small minority or some ridiculous elitist in San Francisco pulled it out of his/her/xer ass one day and decided to dictate to everyone what a word means. If we do not agree then you're essentially creating your own language and communication becomes ineffectual.
Equally, one individual doesn't get to dictate what a word means in their own head and expect others to follow along, while accusing them of being bigoted for not doing it. The minority of offended individuals don't get the power to make these decisions.
You do realize languages change (constantly), right? This gives me the sense of someone echoing talking points picked up from spending time listening to reactionary Youtube agitators (especially the gender-focused dogwhistle)
While the “master” branch is clearly using master in the sense that it asserts control of the other branches in some way.
So IMO, explaining could be done by pointing at the dictionary.