Re: Rename offensive terminology (master)

From: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Jun 18, 2020, 15:23 UTC
Message-ID: <20200618152300.cw7teo2jmxyfsl2l@chatter.i7.local>
In-Reply-To: <CANgJU+WbPgSTxQ=G3sFSvNFQ1cL3onYk5yKLBR=3AqWeEUCfZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:57:42AM +0200, demerphq wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > Of course I missed the other point --- hostnames like master.<domain>
> > (e.g., a hypothetical master.kernel.org), refering to the source of
> > truth for something that then gets replicated.
> >
> > I don't think we're likely to see hostnames like main.kernel.org
> > because it's just *so generic* as a word.
> 
> Yep, you summarized my point well. I would say master.kernel.org is a
> correct use of the term "master copy", and the use in the branch name
> is simply not. My "master branch" for git.git is NOT *the* master.

This is actually an important philosophical point with software like git. There is no such thing as master.kernel.org for the very specific reason that we position kernel.org to be merely a convenient place where to get a *copy* of Linux. The "master copy" of the mainline tree exists only in once place -- on Linus's computer.

-K