It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • linux2647@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s the “master” branch in git, often named “main” now. In distributed systems, there’s often “master” and “slave” nodes, often named “primary” and “follower”/“replica” now

    • Poik@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      The master branch in git isn’t the same though. It’s closer related to the word “remaster.” Master used to mean the original document is still used everywhere in tech and outside of it.

      Main makes more sense since a master copy should be something that doesn’t change in my opinion. But that’s semantics…

    • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean master on git is a stretch but honestly it would make way more sense for it to be like trunk given the whole branch thing. I honestly never see master and slave node but rather primary and actually usually secondary.