You're thinking of the wrong definition of master. Git's master refers to the primary copy of something from which derivative copies are made. E.g. In casting, a master is used to form new molds[1]. In audio engineering, a master tape holds the final mix of a recording[2]. (Incidentally, this is where the term remastering comes from, because you are creating a new master version.)

1. https://www.instructables.com/id/Two-Part-Silicone-Casting/ 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio)

I keep seeing this stated as fact without any citation whatsoever.

Here's an argument with citations that the term "master" in the git context does indeed come from the master/slave terminology:

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-May/...

That's where I assumed "master" came from. But it still doesn't fit, because a master copy is normally static. The master branch in Git is anything but static.

> because a master copy is normally static

That depends on the time scale you are considering.

Why not use "primary" then? In database terminology primary and replica are quite common for instance.

I also think 'main' branch makes more sense, but GitHub is breaking away from an entire collective body of tutorials out there that already reference the 'master' branch. All for the sake of PC and a knee jerk reaction to a recent event. What will people think of this change 5 years on?

I think in 5 years everybody will be used to it. Tutorials will have changed by then and everybody will eventually forget that this was ever an issue.

I'm don't think it's a necessary change, but I also don't think it's a harmful change.

GitHub is not Git.

If the Git cli tool still initializes a new repo to 'master', I'm not going to go out of my way to rename it before I push to GitHub.

I haven't seen any discussion around changing the Git cli tool.

I have: https://public-inbox.org/git/4c08e1a0-db64-5d7d-493f-54c68ee...

I don't think git bans you from using a master branch, does it? It's just that their default has changed. But any other branch name will still work.

> it's not a master that bosses all the other branches around

That's not the only sense of the word "master". There are several, but the one used in git's case is that of a copy or instance from which all other copies are made.

Master copy also makes sense, I admit.

Oh we are going to hear a whole lot of after the fact rationalizations for this as folks pretend there was only ever one meaning of master