It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
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.
That’s not how the terms entered computing though. We always used master in opposition of one or multiple slaves.
And yet you said this… Acting like you speak for the entirety of industry, when I bring up one specific facet of our industry that isn’t using the term juxtaposition to “slaves”… but rather to other concepts of “master”, you now magically change your tune.
