|
|
|
|
|
by maushu
2200 days ago
|
|
Yes, Petr Baudis decided on that name (and also "upstream"). [1] He regrets it now because of his lack of English language knowledge at the time and that "main" makes more sense but he originally based it on the "master copy" concept. I personally don't understand why people decided on this hill to die on. There are much better targets like database master-slave replication. [1] https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441 |
|
It seems then that master doesn't seem like a very loaded word in the context of git. Even so, changing it would then not be very impactful as well (not counting any CI/CD or other config that relies on the master branch name).