> - If we follow the links from the article Michael posted, the term
> "master" in git does not originate from "master record" but rather from
> master/slave.
>

No it doesn't. The fact that someone used the term "slave" as an example
doesn't mean the master/slave concept applies to relationships between
branches in git. You can delete the master branch and it does not make the
slave branch free. Nor is the slave branch at the mercy of the master
branch in any way. Master as in "master record" applies a lot better.

But that's not the point. Even if the master/slave concept applied to git,
does that matter? As a concept in software it's perfectly applicable. The
relationships between software objects tend to be harsh: we kill with
impunity, often randomly or totally, we do genocides (removing all objects
with some property), we have controllers with absolute powers, there's no
due process or jail. Software objects don't have dignity or freedom of
speech.

Requests such as this one are just virtue signalling and pretended
morality, and as such are a pure disruption and make the community LESS
welcoming by insisting on artificial issues. They turn things political. I
expect somebody will accuse me of supporting slavery, but that would be
ridiculous.

I already spent too much time here, I'll not respond further. It's vain
anyway. We can name the master branch "42", I'll get through it.

P.S.: I agree with one point: this change brings more diversity: now you
have to figure which branch is that of which copies are normally made. But
this diversity is bad.

-- 
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individuals named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be 
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, 
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. 
The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions 
in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy 
version. -Hazelcast

Reply via email to