
In my opinion changing Git's master branch name does not help fighting racism - g-garron
https://www.garron.blog/notes/github-to-replace-master-with-alternative-term-to-avoid-slavery-references.html
======
99_00
Getting rid of "master" and "slave" I can understand. If I was the only black
kid in computer science class and they started to talk about "master" and
"slave" I might feel uncomfortable and put off.

But it's not clear to me that git master has the same sort of meaning. Why
couldn't it have a meaning more like 'master copy'?

master copy

an original copy, stencil, tape, etc, from which duplicates are made

~~~
uberman
In good faith, I believe this was the original intent. Like a master key or
the gold master record or cd. It is the highest original source of truth from
which copies can be made and it was never intended for there to be something
called or intimated to be "slave branches".

Unfortunately, there are enough concepts in our discipline that take this
single source of truth concept and use the master/slave terminology. For an
example Google "Replication master" and see if there are _any_ articles on the
page one results that don't reference "slaves". They all do for me when I do a
query.

I see absolutely no harm in moving the git nomenclature of "master" to "trunk"
or "base" some other term. Keep it as an alias and flag it as depreciated.

