|
|
|
|
|
by el_nahual
1924 days ago
|
|
> On a more technical and pedantic level, having a "master" branch really doesn't make any sense without slave branches. The reason master branches are called master branches is as an analogy to a music/record "master", which means "the original, the truest, the canonical". (In an analog world where every copy necessitated deterioration, there was a need to say "this is THE version"). So git master branches meant the same thing: canonical. That's why the name "makes sense" even though there are no slave branches. Just adding this here out of a sense of duty for historical accuracy, and not commenting on the name change itself. |
|