in the entire git "master" debate, remember this:

- hg has default

- svn and fossil have trunk

- clearcase has main

only, AFAIK, bitkeeper and git have master.

the language could have been different, and imo should have been different. in particular, "hg" was developed at about the same time. A choice *was* made.

ClearCase was invented in the early 80s. SVN was booming in the earlky 00s. Just for clarity on the choices and history.

Git had ample prior art of *not using a sensitized word*.

@isagalaev It was, though. I vaguely remember mumbling about stupid names with coworkers then.

@pnathan A choice was certainly made and "main" or "default" may be more descriptive, but I'm not sure the word "master" on its own without "slaves" is really a case requiring corrective action for racial reasons. In this case "master" probably meant something along the lines of "master recording", the version from which copies are made. We also do master's degrees, master skills and have martial arts masters.

@Samsai if you dig around, it's related to BKs use of master/slave terminology.

Ultimately though. Why be a jerk and natter over word origin s?

@pnathan Ultimately, I am in agreement and have no reason to oppose the decision for the default naming to change. If GitHub and the like believe that renaming the default branch helps with racial equality, I'm all for it. It's just that from my point of view, there are no slaves associated with git master branches and I don't personally think the word "master" on its own stands for that.

Master/slave terminology absolutely should be ended though.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Seattle Social

An instance for people who live in or around Seattle. Also for people who don't live in or around Seattle, but want to talk about Seattle-related things. Almost all applications are accepted. We aim to review all applications within a few hours of submission, but give us 24 hours before getting in touch other ways.