Hacker News Reader

But a branch from master is not a slave by any definition. Whereas a branch is a copy of a master. To be clear, I'm not against them changing this. But it just seems odd to base it on the implication that they meant it as master/slave when it clearly isn't used that way by anyone.

View on HN

I was responding to your very general claim that "the connotation of master in the context of source control..."

Here is the bitkeeper documentation[1] saying "we are then going to modify the file on both the master and slave repository and then merge the work."

Safe to say that's in the context of source control? If you meant to say "based on how git works..." then sure, that's a more accurate claim.

https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/H...

I agree that bitkeeper should change from master/slave if they so desire. I'm not aware of anyone using master/slave in terms of git or any other mainstream vcs. And github's specific use of master does not use slave. By changing it, they do seem to imply that they meant it in terms of master/slave though. Branches are not slaves to a master. In standard usage, a branch overwrites the master.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com