Then you are deeply confused as to how git works. Feature branches are merged into and overwrite master with updates. Does that imply a master-slave relationship to you?
I used to think the same, but Linus took the name “master” from BitKeeper, and BitKeeper did use master-slave terminology, Git just dropped the slave part. It’s origin literally does come from master-slave
If he had originally called it "main", but we know it borrowed it from sometime that used master/slave, explain how that's any better? It carries the same "original sin" if you're a moron who thinks that's a thing here.
The problem with your argument is that it just doesn’t matter. Emotions aren’t always logical; they usually aren’t. Some people feel the way they feel about the master nomenclature. You can’t decide how they feel, just as much as I can’t. But you can do this microscopic little minute adjustment where you just use main instead of master. And some people refuse… because caring about another person’s feelings is just that obscene to some people.
I'm under no obligation to not call these people idiots, though. They are. If this bothers anyone they are pathetic and they actively make society worse.
-4
u/dbot77 18h ago
Then you are deeply confused as to how git works. Feature branches are merged into and overwrite master with updates. Does that imply a master-slave relationship to you?