On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:45 PM Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 07:20:33PM +0200, Simon Pieters wrote: > > "master" is an offensive term, as it can be interpreted as being > > slavery-origin terminology. See > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology)#Terminology_concerns > > Git doesn't use "master-slave" terminology -- the "master" comes from > the concept of having a "master" from which copies (branches) are made: > > https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_recording > > The concept predates the music business and goes back to middle ages > when a guild master would create a "master work" or "master piece" that > the apprentices could use for study or for imitation. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_craftsman > > So, while I wholeheartedly support using inclusive language, I think git > is in the clear here. Thanks. This may be so, but it's still the case that it can be (and has been) interpreted as being slavery-origin terminology. If you decide to not change this, then I think it may still be good to add something like the above to the git documentation (like in [1] and [2]), so that projects using git are less inclined to change it for their projects, and maybe the people who are offended by it would be more comfortable if they know that the project maintainers are aware of this issue and could explain why this usage of the word is ok. [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary#Documentation/gitglossary.txt-aiddefmasteramaster [2] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-init -- Simon Pieters Bocoup https://bocoup.com/
