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?
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
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?