Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.
Well, he doesn’t seem so sure about it himself. From the same link:
(But as noted in a separate thread, it is possible it stems from bitkeeper’s master/slave terminology. I hoped to do some historical research but health emergency in my family delayed that.)
the impression words form in the reader is more important than their intent
He didn’t intend for the master/slave connotation. He intended for the recording master connotation. Either way, he regrets using the word master and he’s supportive of the change.
Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.
In alignment with this, we should not replace the master branch with the main branch, we should replace it with the gold branch.
Every time a PR gets approval and it’s time to merge, I could declare that the code has “gone gold” and I am not doing that right now!
Merged -> gone gold
Deployed -> gone platinum
Gone a week without crashing production -> triple platinum
That’s just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper’s terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.
Not according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.
Well, he doesn’t seem so sure about it himself. From the same link:
He also said:
He didn’t intend for the master/slave connotation. He intended for the recording master connotation. Either way, he regrets using the word master and he’s supportive of the change.