I'm curious as well. I 100% support black lives matter and started to rename some git repos from master to main but I notice this master used in git isn't a master/slave type of master but the master copy, the version that every thing looks to as the source of truth. This is not the same as the original. Version 75 is not the original, version 1 is, but it is the master.
I don't mind renaming those to main in fact I started looking into automating the conversion but at the same time it does seem like mission creep. main doesn't actually have the same meaning. In pressing CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays we have "gold masters" which are used to create the molds for the presses for the discs. A master key opens all locks. Those usages all seem unrelated and arguably so does the git usage.
Removing master/slave from tech seems 100% correct. Removing all uses of the word "master" like Darth Vader "I was but a learner but now I am the master" seems wrong and if we aren't going to remove all of them then why are we remove it from git since like those others usages it and zero relation to the problem?
You can think of it more as a return to normalcy, "master" in VCS is relatively unique to git.
p4/piper is MAIN
SVN is 'trunk'
mercurial is 'default'
--
I'd be upset if we were changing commonly held terminology or if it had more meaning.. but it's completely arbitrary and all it costs is the minor reeducation of all github/git users and the invalidation of all prior documentation.
The piety of those who wish everyone to be re-educated and the corpus of documentation to be rendered invalid would be sickening. At least in this instance it brings concepts more in line.
We need less confusing and diverse verbiage in the industry generally speaking, when we refer to the same concepts (server/instance/machine/node being examples), so I think the change is welcome on those merits alone, and if it happens to make people feel better, though there's no evidence of that, then great.
However it's important to understand that if the motivation is purely political, then this can be classified as political correctness, which has proven time and time again to be ineffective and actually /harmful/ to the left; as the right are clever to use it as a recruiting tool- often openly pissing off the left and making them hypersensitive to anyone not towing the line. This was true in the early 90's and it's true again today.
To quote Stephen Fry on political correctness: "if someone wants to shout faggot at me, I don't care, as a gay man. I know I'm supposed to, but I'm supposed to care on behalf of people who are, supposedly weaker than me. and I think it's the most patronising thing in the world. It's exactly the same political correctness that I grew up with which was then, the kind of religious political correctness; which is people complaining about television programmes, about swearing and nudity and violence: 'I am not shocked myself, it's just the vulnerable young minds, you see!'; well, fuck that, that's just not good enough. It really isn't. and that's my objection. it's.. denouncing from the pulpit.. I mean, Russia has political correctness, but in Russia the political correctness is that you can't say Tchaikovsky was gay."[0]
These comments were given before a debate (which unfortunately was derailed frequently) on the efficacy of political correctness; and he made detailed points about words being immediately co-opted to mean hateful things, if there is hateful intent, and largely intent is the most important factor to control for, certainly not language.
I will link to the full debate below;[1]
So, typically I'm against these kinds of measures, and that's the foundation on what this change was about.
If a change can stand by other merits, then sure, but to assume that this will help even a little, with no evidence provided- and to attribute such little weight to the human time in reconfiguring and reeducating is not just patronising in of itself, it's a little dehumanising to those it supposedly supports and forces re-education and labour on the entire development world.
I believe that to be immoral; unless, of course, the change can stand on other merits.
Master as a word doesn't even have to do anything with slave master, anymore so than "owner" has to do with slave owner.
Slave master is just a subcategory of uses of the word master. Here's the etymology, as per the dictionary:
master: from late Old English mægester "a man having control or authority over a place; a teacher or tutor of children," from Latin magister (n.) "chief, head, director, teacher"
mægester comes from latin magister, which in fact did include aspects of slavery - in the sense that a magister is in control of X, whether it be a domain of a science, particular skillset, or people.
The corresponding word for slaves was in turn explicit about "someone who can't refuse order".
> Removing master/slave from tech seems 100% correct. Removing all uses of the word "master" like Darth Vader "I was but a learner but now I am the master" seems wrong and if we aren't going to remove all of them then why are we remove it from git since like those others usages it and zero relation to the problem?
Given that GitHub and git-scm approved of removing this somewhat "problematic" terminology despite the original context being unrelated to master/slave, etc. Where would you draw the line on replacing these terms?
Will there be some nuance in changing said problematic terms, or will this wave of corrections swallow everything in its way. imo, there are some obvious problems with 'whitelist-blacklist'. But 'master' tends to be on the harmless side on the spectrum of problematic terms? I'm open to changing my views, tbh.
Saddens me that you got downvoted for asking an earnest question, I guess people are scared of what this topic will devolve into.