Am Fr., 3. Mai 2019 um 15:36 Uhr schrieb Carmen Bianca Bakker <car...@carmenbianca.eu>: > > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 14:45 +0200, Bastien Nocera skribis: > > [...] > > If we agree that the "master" in the git branch name is the same > > "master" that's used in "master copy" meaning "the original", "the one > > medium that other copies are made from", then it's probably a > > "master/slave" relationship. > > > > There are still existing mentions of "slave copies". In short, "master > > copies" could have been called that because the copies made from it > > were "slave copies". > > This logic makes sense to me, thank you. That was the missing bit of > logic for me. I can get on board with that. > [...]
Is this really true though? I never once heard of a "slave copy", so I just googled the word combination, yielding only 7.130 results, none of which that I skimmed through relate to an actual "slave copy" as in "copied from master". All seem to deal with copying to slave(-machines) or copies that slaves hold. For comparison, "master copy" yields >> 542.000.000 results. So either the term slave copy does not exist at all, or it is very fringe and has never been widely used or used recently. Thinking about it, a 1:1 copy from master is still a master in its own right and completely identical to the pristine data it was copied from. So there is really do dependency relationship here, as you would normally have in a traditional master<->slave pattern. All master copies are equal in their "master-ness". So, having a slave copy makes no logical sense to me. tl;dr: Is there some further reading on the usage of slave copy in projects and its common etymology with master copy? Cheers, Matthias -- I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list