use etymologically correct default git branch name
use etymologically correct default git branch name

“the original, the truest, the canonical” — from music production

- | | 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.
  - | Since we are talking about branches, wouldn't a "root" branch
    | makes more sense?
    - | It doesn't really matter which makes "more sense." You could
      | call it the canon branch, the root branch, the trunk branch,
      | the main branch, the master branch, whatever.
      |
      | The point is that the word master, in this context, has a
      | different etymology that the word master in say, a database. Now,
      | that might not matter: if you care about changing the name of the
      | branch you probably care about the way the name makes people feel,
      | not the etymology of the word, and perhaps that's a good argument
      | (personally I don't know and don't really care). Nonetheless,
      | the etymology of the word is a factual statement, so I was
      | correcting a poster who was assuming it was an analogy to a
      | different context.
      - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26495269

atweiden/macfiles