Yes exactly. It’s a reference to the recording industry’s practice of calling the final version of an album the “master” which gets sent for duplication.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In alignment with this, we should not replace the master branch with the main branch, we should replace it with the gold branch.

Every time a PR gets approval and it’s time to merge, I could declare that the code has “gone gold” and I am not doing that right now!

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago

Merged -> gone gold

Deployed -> gone platinum

Gone a week without crashing production -> triple platinum

[–] vulpivia@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's just not true. It originally came from Bitkeeper's terminology, which had a master branch and slave branches.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not according to pasky, the git contributor who picked the names.

[–] vulpivia@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, he doesn't seem so sure about it himself. From the same link:

(But as noted in a separate thread, it is possible it stems from bitkeeper's master/slave terminology. I hoped to do some historical research but health emergency in my family delayed that.)

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

He also said:

the impression words form in the reader is more important than their intent

He didn’t intend for the master/slave connotation. He intended for the recording master connotation. Either way, he regrets using the word master and he’s supportive of the change.