On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 12:41 +0200, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 12:12 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > It's easier to completely remove "master" to remove mentions of > > "master/slave" and to remove the non-gender neutral "master" than > > it > > would be to do half of that. Two birds, one stone. > > Haha. I see what you did there. But no, we're not talking about > removing the "non-gender neutral master" either.
I think you're trying to argue that the "master" in "master git branch" is not a "master" that's derived from the "master" person. I don't think that holds. See link below. > Yes, there is a gender-specific word "master" which is also a homonym > of the one in "master/slave". > > No, that isn't the one which is used when we say "the master copy" or > "the master branch". They all come from the same word with the same connotations: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/master FWIW, "master copy" has quite a lot of synonyms that are used in other languages and can be reused here, such as "copy zero", "original (copy)", or in some uses "standard copy". > Besides, we can't use "mainline" anyway, as that is a reference to > intravenous drug taking and since we can't be expected tell homonyms > apart or pass basic primary school comprehension exercises by > applying > our knowledge of context to the words we see, we'll *obviously* > interpret all instances of the word "mainline" as references to > drugs... right? This is a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. Are you going to argue that we can't use "trunk" either because of its link to deforestation? ;) _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
