• meow
    6·
    11 months ago

    I think that’s why we’re supposed to call it main now

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      9·
      11 months ago

      “master” in version control has no corresponding “slave,” but nevertheless the “master/slave” terminology is the reason why GitHub switched to “main” and everyone else followed suit

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      11 months ago

      The naming isn’t great still… I usually use ReadWrite instance and replica. I really wish we had some more concise replacement terms.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        7·
        11 months ago

        Main is the replacement for master for git branches, not the general master-slave pattern. Wikipedia suggests:

        Other replacement names include controller, default, director, host, initiator, leader, manager, primary, principal, root; and for slave: agent, client, device, performer, peripheral, replica, responder, satellite, secondary, subordinate, and worker.

        I usually use controller / worker if it’s a local process or controller / remote if the subordinates are on different hosts.

        • _edge@discuss.tchncs.de
          2·
          11 months ago

          I know I’m old, but never found that calling a dumb machine a slave to be problemtic. The thing is supposed to obey my orders. It’s in the code and code is law.

          I’m also not American and never owned slaves.