It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
So in a git commit (since they mentioned branches)… What’s the slave? Since your the one gatekeeping the word you should know right? How come Git can’t be Master in the context they provided when there is no existence of a slave commit?
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. I haven’t gatekept anything, you can use whatever term you want, that’s none of my business. You can happily read my other comment. To me, “master” makes no sense if there are no “slaves”. That’s why I don’t use it. It doesn’t make sense to use it. You do you, that’s your business.
https://mastering.com/how-to-master-a-song/
To master something, has a number of meanings that don’t require the use of “slaves”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master
Definitions most definitions of the word have nothing to do with slaves.
Edit: In this case, I believe that we all treat Git the same as this definition in specific…
: to produce a master recording of (something, such as a musical rendition)
So just because you only know of “master” in regards to “slaves”… that doesn’t make you right.
Never said it made me right. Just didn’t make sense to me. You can still use whatever you like, as I do.
