Rasism was fixed by not using black- and whitelists on firewalls. Separate endeavour.
There was a lot of dog-piling by culture-war peddlers. They try to ragebait people so they can pull you into their spheres of influence to sell you their supplements, placebos and political ads.
They rely only on appeals to emotion (specifically knee-jerk reactions to any change).
So they can be ignored.
-----------------------------------
But now to the actual logical goal.
The goal is to prevent mistraining.
"Master" didn't really make sense. It was supposed to mean one thing that controls another thing (the slave), but nothing ever works out that way in reality.
For example:
- Written records/logs: A master record would sometimes be overridden by a slave record. Also, adding a third record for fault-tolerance to tie-break inconsistencies breaks the master/slave metaphor.
- Storage media: "Master" records didn't make sense since you'd also have a "gold master", again breaking the metaphor.
- Storage media devices: The master/slave pins in ATA/PATA devices (and similar) didn't actually do what they said on the tin.
- Distributed Version Control Systems (e.g. git): It's distributed by design, there is no master. It didn't make sense in the git flow context, the trunk-based development context, the forked project context, the merged project context, the upstream/downstream context, etc...
- ... and practically everywhere else you would run into a master/slave metaphor.
Every system worked differently, and treated the metaphor differently too.
-----------------------------------
The whole problem with a bad metaphor/analogy is that things don't work how the metaphor suggests they work. People are not sure where responsibility lies. Multiple people work under the same information and end up with incompatible understandings of how things actually work.
If you're not familiar with ATA, you're going to come across the terms Secondary Master, and Primary Slave.
Then you're going to run into questions like: How can there be more than one master? Does a primary master control a secondary master? What happens when they disagree? Does a primary slave control a secondary slave, or a secondary master? etc...
Or worse, you're not going to ask the question and work under an assumption without realising it.
Removing the possibility of that happening as much as possible makes everything better.
It's always better to replace a confusing term with a less confusing term.
That's why people stopped recommending "master" in git workflows.
-----------------------------------
TL;DR: "main" reduces confusion in the git-flow context, "trunk" reduces confusion in the trunk-based development context.
I always thought it took, pretty directly, the 1st meaning in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/master_copy, which does fit the ultimate definition as it's the copy all of the edits follow from until they are merged at which point they become the new master edit and the following edits become based off of it. Same of branches, just on a large scale of edits.
Main (or most any other common primary branch name) can have equally trivial confusions that are not actual problems. The endless debates about branch names didn't come about because people were so confused we needed something else to stop the madness, they came about because people were convinced they could find a problem to need to fix. Any of these branch names work equally fine, it really doesn't matter and there is no deeper logic needed to justify why we switched.
Yes, switching standards is confusing and taxing.
Although, using bad standards is also confusing and taxing.
Usually those taxes are internalised somewhere and forgotten, becoming a hidden tax. They become apparent once pointed out, like when trying to fix a standard or switching to a new standard, but they exist nonetheless.
------------------------------
> you'd have to be an obsessive to think that hard about minor language choices to the point of forcing a change on tens of millions of people after-the-fact.
No, it's not mis-managers throwing their weight around, it's not culture war, it's not etymological one-up-man-ship, it's not politics, it's just systems theory.
Every time someone gets stung by a hidden tax in a system, and the cause of the sting can't/won't be addressed, it builds up pressure.
If the pressure can't be relieved, it continues building to the point that the system starts to strain. Eventually the system reaches the point where the strain has to be released and there's a sudden change.
Systems theory.
I really hate how people pretend to be stupid and not know that master means a lot of different things: "animal owner", "an expert", "a tradesman", "postgraduate degree", "original", and many others (including dated definitions). Wiktionary lists 21 definitions, only one of which is slave owner.
It lists two which references "slave".
Definition 2 references slave owning, but that's irrelevant to the actual discussion here.
This thread is talking about definition 17:
> (engineering, computing) A device that is controlling other devices or is an authoritative source. > > Synonyms: coordinator, primary > Antonyms: secondary, slave, worker
---------------------------
> I really hate how people pretend to be stupid and not know that master means a lot of different things
"Master" meaning different things is exactly the problem.
Even if we limit ourselves specifically to definition 17, it still means too many things. It's overloaded to the point that it doesn't accurately describe the systems where it's used.
- https://www.hanselman.com/blog/easily-rename-your-git-defaul...
Git has nothing to do with that (not that master-slave is wrong).
> master-slave metaphor is both technically and historically inaccurate
How can a metaphor be historically inaccurate? The whole point of a metaphor is that it's evocative, not real. A slave DB following what the master DB is doing is a good metaphor. Where is the historical inaccuracy there?
> it costs me nothing to change my vocabulary
Changing hard coded values costs a lot. I still have scripts which reference both `master` and `main`.
> especially if it is one less little speed bump to getting a new person excited about tech
And we've gotten to the main issue. This whole thing is about making white-knighting white Americans feel better about themselves. There was no outcry from black people saying they can't program until Git changes its terminology.
Not to mention that slavery has nothing to do with racism. This is just an American-centric view. Historically people enslaved their own kind. Getting slaves from other continents is a relative recent thing in the grand scheme of things.
It cost reddit a 3 hour outage.
>The nodeSelector and peerSelector for the route reflectors target the label `node-role.kubernetes.io/master`. In the 1.20 series, Kubernetes changed its terminology from “master” to “control-plane.” And in 1.24, they removed references to “master,” even from running clusters. This is the cause of our outage.
https://old.reddit.com/r/RedditEng/comments/11xx5o0/you_brok...
I never did understand what they felt was wrong about git master, there was no slave or even work involved. it was more like the master print of a video. you know the thing that "remasters" are made from.
We don’t actually have to be nice to people just because they’re slightly upset. Every time they get what they want, it emboldens them.
Also, are we supposed to ban the word master from all of it's dozens of normal English use-cases? I never got a clear answer on why git branch names were so much more harmful than someone mastering a skill or making a master record.
Can you cite any person, before, during or after, who gave a valid, coherent argument as to why the old name should annoy anyone? (Or are you willing to attempt one yourself?)
Note: the two arguments I am familiar with boil down to "it could be understood as describing a bad historical event, and ipso facto must not be uttered", and "if I am annoyed by something then that is inherently valid and you lack standing to question me, on account of my identity characteristics". I don't accept either of these as valid, for hopefully obvious reasons.
(And in fact, I can't recall actually ever seeing the second argument deployed honestly. I can only recall seeing people not of the relevant identity characteristics presuming that they were defending people who would feel that way.)
Anyway I'm off to listen to the 50th anniversary Dark Side of the Moon remaster. Wait, is "dark" an okay word? I didn't get a master's degree in English
* Parallel ATA on the other hand, yeah, yikes
It diminishes the seriousness of the entire anti-racism movement by making it look petty, out of touch and more interested in creating nuisances than solving real problems. The San Francisco school board got fired for doing similar nonsense during COVID, renaming schools and thus showing they weren’t serious people.
I have yet to see a good reason to believe that it isn't actually the case.
Do you consider that using the name "master" for a branch tends to endorse or normalize slavery, or (even stochastically) increase the amount of slavery that occurs in the world?
If so, how?
If not, why is it actually a problem to reference the concept (even disregarding the evidence that it was not intended to do so)?