[olalonde]

The costs were moderate, not colossal. But they were still bigger than the benefits, which were tiny to non-existant. Because 99.99% of people do not actually see a "master branch" as a racially-charged or bigoted term.

In the case of Kubernetes, I suppose those terms were chosen from the beginning so there was no cost of switching. And hence why no one complained about it.

Which incidentally supports my claim: that people were upset about the cost of changing rather than because of their secret admiration for slavery.

[rewmie]

> The costs were moderate, not colossal.

Care to point out any concrete example? Just pick the absolute best example you can imagine. So far none was provided. There's all this talk about "cost" but apparently it's so costly that even providing a concrete example is prohibitively expensive.

> In the case of Kubernetes, I suppose those terms were chosen from the beginning so there was no cost of switching. And hence why no one complained about it.

What's there to complain? Absolutely nothing at all.

[olalonde]

But I did provide some examples in my original comment: "fragmentation, outdated tutorials and scripts, and confusion for beginners".

> What's there to complain? Absolutely nothing at all.

Well yes, that's my point. We agree on that. In the case of git, I am sure if "main" had always been the convention there would have been nothing to complain about as well. In fact, I am sure the same people who complained about the change from "master" to "main" would have complained about a change from "main" to "master".