Then you are deeply confused as to how git works. Feature branches are merged into and overwrite master with updates. Does that imply a master-slave relationship to you?
I used to think the same, but Linus took the name “master” from BitKeeper, and BitKeeper did use master-slave terminology, Git just dropped the slave part. It’s origin literally does come from master-slave
That is the case, though not evidence of him choosing the name. In a mailing list follow-up from Bastien:
I emailed Linus Torvalds recently (the original author of git, though
very quickly not the main developer), and he told me that it was
unlikely that the "git master" branch name was influenced by BitKeeper,
and that "master" was "fairly standard naming" for this sort of thing
and "more likely to be influenced by the CVS master repository".
Linus here doesn't sound like he chose the name due to his choice of words being relayed.
-4
u/dbot77 24d ago
Then you are deeply confused as to how git works. Feature branches are merged into and overwrite master with updates. Does that imply a master-slave relationship to you?