Stumbled upon this when looking for help on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1cwag3q/are_race_conditions_racist/?chainedposts=t3_n8qi6n
Stumbled upon this when looking for help on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1cwag3q/are_race_conditions_racist/?chainedposts=t3_n8qi6n
This. To avoid the “master” branch on our git to be associated with “slave” I now name new branches “bitch”
There aren’t “slaves” in git, though. The term “master” in that context is that of a master copy.
Nope. Bitkeeper used it in the master-slave pairing and the term was carried forward. Gitlab did a whole writeup about it.
“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!
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 🤷♂️
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.
It doesn’t. See: master tapes and the mastering process.
Sorry, the maining process.
Just skip the intermediate naming conventions and go straight to
dom/sub