On Saturday, May 4, 2019, Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> wrote: > On Sat, 2019-05-04 at 12:32 +0200, drago01 via desktop-devel-list > wrote: > > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/master > > > > Master / slave relation is just one of the possible meanings but not > > in the context of master copy > > > > "an original version of something from which copies can be made:" .. > > > > this has no connection with slavery at all. > > Reference needed. You don't know where it comes from, and you're not > even trying to find where "master copy" takes its name from. >
"The term master copy has a unique meaning in art that predates the modern term. In art, a master copy is the process of drawing or painting a copy of a another artist's work. It is most common to copy the work of a master artist, hence the term master copy. This is considered an essential form of practice. In some cases, master copies become valuable artworks such as Van Gogh's Flowering Plum Tree (right) based on Hiroshige's Plum Park in Kameido (left)." Source: https://simplicable.com/new/master-copy Does not have a connection to slavery in that context at all. > > Words have meanings based on context - trying to make a connection > > to slavery where is none nor any intent to do so is actually > > disrespectful to whomever named the default branch "master". > > First appearance of "master" in git is in a CVS helper script[1]: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/3e91311ae750af9bf2e3517b1e701288ac3066b9 > > Why is that branch called master? Probably because BitKeeper uses > "master" for its main branch: > http://www.bitkeeper.org/tips.html#_how_do_i_rebase_my_work_ > on_top_of_a_different_changeset > > But maybe this "master" isn't the same one that's in "master/slave"? > See the documentation about > master/slave repositories: > https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223 > > But repositories and branches aren't the same! They are in BitKeeper: > https://users.bitkeeper.org/t/branching-with-bk/158/2 > > So, yes, the "git master" branch probably isn't even a "master copy" > reference, but a straight up master/slave reference. > > Did I get anything wrong there? > > > > [1]: And this is the commit that made it the default branch: > https://github.com/git/git/commit/cad88fdf8d1ebafb5d4d1b92eb243f > f86bae740b#diff-8117edf99fe3ee201b23c8c157a64c95R41 > >
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
