[ceejayoz]

You're free to name a Github branch "master" if you want.

Others are free to pick "main". Github's free to pick a default. People are free to infer what they like from your choice.

Over time, we figure out which one we, as a society, prefer.

[audessuscest]

give it a year or two before professional offended people think it's outrageous that there's still projects using master branch, then give it a week before github start giving notice to those projects.

Did you see that some artist is close to be canceled for saying the most boring stuff? https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1491433294935867397

What you may find harmless and maybe even meaningless change, is actually part of a total insanity that he's not going to stop anywhere.

[ceejayoz]

> Did you see that some artist is close to be canceled for saying the most boring stuff?

I see the NY Post is once again running a "here are some random tweets" article of the sort they've been running for years now to fill clickbait space.

[audessuscest]

You can act like what I described doesn't exist but that won't change reality.

Isn't one of the recent hot topic about banning someone for the word he used? There's a "scandal" like that every other day now...

[ceejayoz]

> There's a "scandal" like that every other day now...

Yes. That's what tabloids have done for hundreds of years. The NY Post has convinced you Adele is being canceled over a couple of mean @mentions on Twitter from random people with minimal following. You've fallen for it, and might consider what else in the culture war you've gotten stirred up about that isn't as big of a deal as a breathless tabloid article would imply.

[audessuscest]

"It was always like that, it's just tabloid amplifying"

ok... https://twitter.com/MrsT106/status/1491695608121409538

[ComputerGuru]

This isn't about people having the option just happening to have an option to pick whatever name they want - this is in the context of a massive backlash against the specific use of a specific word, then people being given the option to make that choice under scrutiny or at least with extreme care and taking into account the risk of backlash should they "choose wrong."

[TeeMassive]

> You're free to name a Github branch "master" if you want.

The time me and many other spent finding a solution is not "free", and is not the first time that has happened or will happen.

> Others are free to pick "main". Github's free to pick a default. People are free to infer what they like from your choice.

Until Microsoft and other Big Tech companies decide that they will promote projects and developers who do.Of course they are "free" to do so, but that goes against your argument that people are "free to choose".

> Over time, we figure out which one we, as a society, prefer.

Where did "society" or the git user communities were asked and heard if that was a good idea? The decision came from the bottom up and the discussions that were had were restricted to a few posts (because "we already had that discussion before, flagged/deleted) or were incredibly censored and one-sided with accusations of racism directed at people who were using their real names and work addresses.

[dzhiurgis]

I don't like being reminded about racism, murders, looting and shooting in some irrelevant american town every time my build fails because of this inflammatory change by github.

[ceejayoz]

Life is full of disappointments.

Having to update a branch name on a couple dependencies a few times doesn't really rise that high on my list of them.