See this email for some references:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...
Then does simply performing a search on bitkeepers documents for "slave" then automatically imply any particular terminology "came from bitkeeper?"
Did they take it from bitkeeper because they prefer antiquated chattel slavery terminology? Is there any actual documents that show this /intention/?
Or did they take it because "master" without slave is easily recognizable as described above which accurately describes how it's _actually_ implemented in git.
Further git is distributed. Bitkeeper was not.
This is just time wasting silliness.
With git it was basically entirely driven by SJW that felt empowered by people accepting the replica rebrand
I don't really care what the default branch is called tho so I'm willing to play along.
This let them claim huge diff counts and major contributions to DEI and get promos.
Now, the left wing activists have turned it on its head again, and now saying that the term "black" is shameful and racist. It's bizarre how ignorant people are who say the term "blacklist" is racist.
Middle gray, according to modern UX designers. ;)
Blocklist makes more sense in most scenarios.
are you sure this is about time/breaking and not "being told how to think"?
Yeah, it's not like 99% of the world has already switched from master to main already (without any major problems) ...
These are the kinda local things that the parent was probably referring to.