On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 12:43 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 11:33 +0100, Richard Hughes via desktop-devel- > list wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 06:21, <mcatanz...@gnome.org> wrote: > > > This should go without saying, but master branches are not a > > > reference > > > to slavery, rather to canonicity. The master branch is the > > > canonical > > > branch, the primary copy. > > > > This is very much my thinking too. I'd agree with this proposal if > > every branch forked from master was called slave/hughsie/whatever but > > in this case the master is clearly referring to the canonical version > > that the others are derived from. The word "master" isn't a bad word, > > and doesn't always mean the opposite of slave. > > It's non-gender neutral, which was mentioned earlier in the thread.
It's not, which was mentioned earlier in the thread. At https://www.google.com/search?q=master+definition there is a definition of various noun, adjective and verb forms of the word "master". The master/slave definition is #1 in the list of nouns. #2 is also gender-specific, as is #5. But #3, #4 and #6 are not gender-specific, and #6 is the word that's used in the context of "master branch". Claiming that "master branch" is gender-specific is just plain wrong.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
