after reading of this initiative, I've considered and did change from gold master to original source in code comment, in relation to a set of verbatim copies of a specific file across repos.
Details
I am not a native English language speaker, so I appreciated guidance from this initiative.
In my case, I had a specific file copied as-is across several repositories. One is considered the "source", while the other verbatim copies; if a change in the content of the file is needed, I invited to change it "at the original place" by means of a code comment, which used the term gold master. This is simply what I've been accustomed to, as a synonym of ~candidate release but that holds in time. It is also what I've been seeing used in the industry (of software) at large, like in the past for example when there was announcements of Mac OSX versions to developers, if I recall correctly.
I admit in my original thoughts I was quite skeptical that referring to "gold master" could have been considered problematic; I have always used it as a metaphor like everyone else, similarly to the floppy disk icon as a metaphor for saving.
On other hand
I am not a native English speaker, so I am not the best to evaluate implications
I am producing code, definitely not vinyl records 🤣
Also, I believe it is very likely younger generations may associate the floppy disk icon directly as a symbol, hence the convention automatically hold on the basis of convention for that symbol in itself; instead "gold master" is a set of words in technical terms, not a symbol.
I could not find any article or reference when the suffix .GM was dropped. That would have helped me with some more guidance.
In conclusion.
I've realised it was just easier to change my wording to better convey my original intention, on the following premises.
Using a floppy disk icon is advantageous by convention since you have a symbol instead of a full word.
But using the convention of gold master in words did not offer any significative advantage than, say, using original source as a more precise term; if any, it required a widespread convention which I'm not sure it is still that widespread nowadays.
With that, I've changed my code comment from~
// ... if changes are needed, modify the gold master of this file at ...
to~
// ... if changes are needed, modify the original source of this file at ...
If there is feedback on this reasoning it is appreciated, please let me know; thanks!
Ciao
P.S.:
You may consider adding "original source" or "main reference" etc in the FAQ.
You should consider resolving this GitHub Issue, I've just used it to report feedback per your invite.
ref https://github.com/conscious-lang/conscious-lang-docs/blame/main/faq.md#L42
TL;DR:
after reading of this initiative, I've considered and did change from
gold mastertooriginal sourcein code comment, in relation to a set of verbatim copies of a specific file across repos.Details
I am not a native English language speaker, so I appreciated guidance from this initiative.
In my case, I had a specific file copied as-is across several repositories. One is considered the "source", while the other verbatim copies; if a change in the content of the file is needed, I invited to change it "at the original place" by means of a code comment, which used the term
gold master. This is simply what I've been accustomed to, as a synonym of ~candidate release but that holds in time. It is also what I've been seeing used in the industry (of software) at large, like in the past for example when there was announcements of Mac OSX versions to developers, if I recall correctly.I admit in my original thoughts I was quite skeptical that referring to "gold master" could have been considered problematic; I have always used it as a metaphor like everyone else, similarly to the floppy disk icon as a metaphor for saving.
On other hand
Also, I believe it is very likely younger generations may associate the floppy disk icon directly as a symbol, hence the convention automatically hold on the basis of convention for that symbol in itself; instead "gold master" is a set of words in technical terms, not a symbol.
I could not find any article or reference when the suffix
.GMwas dropped. That would have helped me with some more guidance.In conclusion. I've realised it was just easier to change my wording to better convey my original intention, on the following premises. Using a floppy disk icon is advantageous by convention since you have a symbol instead of a full word. But using the convention of gold master in words did not offer any significative advantage than, say, using
original sourceas a more precise term; if any, it required a widespread convention which I'm not sure it is still that widespread nowadays.With that, I've changed my code comment from~
to~
If there is feedback on this reasoning it is appreciated, please let me know; thanks! Ciao
P.S.: You may consider adding "original source" or "main reference" etc in the FAQ. You should consider resolving this GitHub Issue, I've just used it to report feedback per your invite.