It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
There’s the “master” branch in git, often named “main” now. In distributed systems, there’s often “master” and “slave” nodes, often named “primary” and “follower”/“replica” now
The master branch in git isn’t the same though. It’s closer related to the word “remaster.” Master used to mean the original document is still used everywhere in tech and outside of it.
Main makes more sense since a master copy should be something that doesn’t change in my opinion. But that’s semantics…
I mean master on git is a stretch but honestly it would make way more sense for it to be like trunk given the whole branch thing. I honestly never see master and slave node but rather primary and actually usually secondary.
