[tripdout]

On one hand, I struggle to think that people might actually care about switching "master" to "main", as opposed to making wider improvements to inclusivity.

On the other hand, I don't have a strong attachment at all to naming a branch "master" and can easily rename it without a second thought.

[jwilk]

> I don't have a strong attachment at all to naming a branch "master" and can easily rename it without a second thought.

It's easy only if you don't care about all the people who already cloned your repo.

Recovering from remote repos renaming their default branches is no fun.

[Cthulhu_]

And yet, branches disappearing is not uncommon. Changing your remote branch name is trivial, but being made aware of it is the problem. It's been a while since this change was done, but if it was still being proposed, the git client saying "oi, this branch changed name" and offering to update things would be a bit more user friendly.

[ParetoOptimal]

> On one hand, I struggle to think that people might actually care about switching "master" to "main", as opposed to making wider improvements to inclusivity.

I thought it wasn't a big issue until I saw how hard one side fought to keep the name "master".

After that I changed my mind and name all of my branches main and give a little push to projects I'm part of to do the same.

Plus, words do have power:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51USLgPWhgc

[zer00eyz]

> I thought it wasn't a big issue until I saw how hard one side fought to keep the name "master".

Master craftsman? Master mold? Master copy? Head Master... Just because this word was used in relation to slavery doesn't curtail its use in language, removing it only serves to focus its "power".

Also, thats not how language works. At all. It is never how language worked. An Australian and an American are going to have a very different reaction to the word cunt.

Candidly, the erasing of words from language for any reason is very 1984, it's a book you might want to read, its a good primer to understanding how control of language is one of the features of fascism. You should probably read up on how linguistic purity was part and parcel of Italian and to a lesser degree German control of the people.

[Zetaphor]

> Master craftsman? Master mold? Master copy? Head Master... Just because this word was used in relation to slavery doesn't curtail its use in language, removing it only serves to focus its "power".

Except none of those examples are relevant comparisons. It's well documented that the reason the default branch name was master traces back to Bitkeeper, which was using the master/slave nomenclature.

> Also, thats not how language works. At all. It is never how language worked. An Australian and an American are going to have a very different reaction to the word cunt.

Master and slave have universal meaning across all English dialects.

If you're going to make an argument against this change on the basis of semantics, at least get your facts right.

[skissane]

> It's well documented that the reason the default branch name was master traces back to Bitkeeper, which was using the master/slave nomenclature.

Git never had "slaves". And while no doubt that BitKeeper was a significant influence on Git's adoption of the term "master", can you say it was the only one? Are you arguing that Torvalds had never heard of the term "master copy", and that term didn't influence him at all (not even unconsciously)?

> Master and slave have universal meaning across all English dialects.

Even when a word has the same denotation across dialects, its connotations and associations can differ significantly.

Also, certainly for the word "master", there are senses of that word, and derived words, which are more associated with some English dialects than others. In the UK, it is common to call a school principal a "headmaster"; it is very rare in the US; in Australia, it is more common than in the US but less so than in the UK (and mainly associated with private schools). Similarly, "Master" as a title for the head of a university college is traditional in the UK (especially at its most prestigious institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge), I don't think any US universities use it any more.

[lliamander]

> I thought it wasn't a big issue until I saw how hard one side fought to keep the name "master".

They only fight that hard because they know the people fighting to remove "master" are (as a group) acting in bad faith.

On this and many other issues they tend to lie about history and language, extort those who don't comply with threats of sabotage towards their projects and/or careers, and will equivocate and dissemble whenever confronted.

It's perfectly fine want to use "main" rather than "master" (that is probably my preference). And it is perfectly fine to suggest other people do as well. But if you suggest it others and they tell "no" (politely or not), the right thing for you to do at that point is to mind your own business.

[Cthulhu_]

I mean in the end it could have just been a polite request.

But a lot of people get very defensive about it, not just for practical reasons but out of fear of the slippery slope or the consequences of a perceived angry PC mob that can utterly destroy their projects and careers.