• lowleveldata@programming.dev
    552·
    5 months ago

    This. To avoid the “master” branch on our git to be associated with “slave” I now name new branches “bitch”

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      452·
      5 months ago

      There aren’t “slaves” in git, though. The term “master” in that context is that of a master copy.

        • Citizen@lemmy.ml
          111·
          5 months ago

          “Historically, the default name for this initial branch was master. This term came from Bitkeeper, a predecessor to Git. Bitkeeper referred to the source of truth as the “master repository” and other copies as “slave repositories”. This shows how common master/slave references have been in technology, and the difficulty in knowing how the term master should be interpreted.”

          Excerpt from the link the other member posted above! You’re welcome!

        • Miaou@jlai.lu
          7·
          5 months ago

          It’s funny, because a quick online search shows gitlab runs operations in Saudi Arabia. But at least a bunch of idiot westerners get to feel good about themselves 🤷‍♂️

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        524·
        5 months ago

        And a master copy is used to produce slaves - though slave isn’t widespread in version control it’s still quite present in databases. And it all comes from the same Master/Slave naming habit.