[kelnos]

The thing that bothers me about the people who dig in and insist on continuing to use "master" is that... well... this is the hill they want to die on? If changing was some big expensive process, or if it was a name that held some sort of special historical significance (or whatever), I could maybe see the argument against. But it's... the original default branch name of a source control tool. Get over it and move on, maybe?

(Having said that, I still haven't gotten around to renaming all my existing repositories...)

[makeitdouble]

> If changing was some big expensive process

This is the main fear in every org I have seen the debate play out.

Going to every single script and tool that touches git, check and update it isn’t free, nor completely devoid of risk. Even when everyone is one the same page about the right thing to do, it’s tough to prioritize over other actual production issues.

[rgoulter]

The appeal to arbitrariness goes both ways. If it's a minor choice, insisting it be changed is silly. "Get over it and move on" applies just as much to either.

That people have feelings about a topic that's disproportionate to its significance is characteristic of a flame-war. It's natural for people to hold strong opinions on all sorts of stuff like this. It's very human.

[dijit]

Everyone has opinions over the colour of the bike shed.