Final answer:
The statement is historically true, with 'master' branch often serving as the official branch for production code; however, Git allows for flexible workflows with different branches, and default naming conventions are evolving for inclusivity.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement about the master being the official branch where production-ready code lives is historically true, but it's important to note that the default branch naming convention has been changing in many version control systems, including Git. The term 'master' has been replaced with 'main' in many cases due to a push for more inclusive language within the tech community. However, 'master' can still be used in many repositories, or another branch name could be designated as the official branch for production-ready code. In Git, it is not necessarily true that you always want to push your changes to 'master'; it depends on the workflow adopted by the project. Git allows for multiple branches in a repository, and the remote repository can have different branches for development, testing, and production that may serve as the official source of code at different points in the development cycle.