Out of curiosity, are you going to amend these responses, since it was pointed out to you in one of the threads to you, via Twitter exchange with the dev that actually chose the name, that it didn't come from BitKeeper's use, and refers to BitKeeper?
You can still obviously make the argument that people could misinterpret it as a master/slave reference, which is a perfectly valid perspective, but since you've updated the post twice with new info, seems you ought to provide this: twitter.com/xpasky/status/12722807... and remove the Bitkeeper reference?
Git's master is historically tied to master/slave. It got the name from BitKeeper.
Source here
Out of curiosity, are you going to amend these responses, since it was pointed out to you in one of the threads to you, via Twitter exchange with the dev that actually chose the name, that it didn't come from BitKeeper's use, and refers to BitKeeper?
You can still obviously make the argument that people could misinterpret it as a master/slave reference, which is a perfectly valid perspective, but since you've updated the post twice with new info, seems you ought to provide this: twitter.com/xpasky/status/12722807... and remove the Bitkeeper reference?
medium.com/@sosogvritishvili/racis...