It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s not how the terms entered computing though. We always used master in opposition of one or multiple slaves. It implies that one component has control and orders the other one around.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      So in a git commit (since they mentioned branches)… What’s the slave? Since your the one gatekeeping the word you should know right? How come Git can’t be Master in the context they provided when there is no existence of a slave commit?

      • febra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m not sure where you’re going with this. I haven’t gatekept anything, you can use whatever term you want, that’s none of my business. You can happily read my other comment. To me, “master” makes no sense if there are no “slaves”. That’s why I don’t use it. It doesn’t make sense to use it. You do you, that’s your business.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          https://mastering.com/how-to-master-a-song/

          To master something, has a number of meanings that don’t require the use of “slaves”.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master

          Definitions most definitions of the word have nothing to do with slaves.

          Edit: In this case, I believe that we all treat Git the same as this definition in specific…

          : to produce a master recording of (something, such as a musical rendition)

          So just because you only know of “master” in regards to “slaves”… that doesn’t make you right.

          • febra@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Never said it made me right. Just didn’t make sense to me. You can still use whatever you like, as I do.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s not how the terms entered computing though. We always used master in opposition of one or multiple slaves.

              And yet you said this… Acting like you speak for the entirety of industry, when I bring up one specific facet of our industry that isn’t using the term juxtaposition to “slaves”… but rather to other concepts of “master”, you now magically change your tune.

              • febra@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Look, I come from the hardware part of the industry and have never seen anyone talk about “master records” in software but always about master devices controlling slave devices. I’ll give you that, apparently “master records” are a thing (although I’m curious in what part of the industry). At the same time, it seems so niche and weird to me that there’s no point for me to use it. I’ll stick with main because it just makes more sense and seems a lot more intuitive to people than to think about master records and what not. You do you, I personally absolutely do not care at all what you go with in your projects.