That is not the point. The point is millions of man months of time an money are being spent doing something that has zero meaning. Changing master/slave on networking, ok. Changing master copy to main copy doesn't remotely help black lives or black pride or anything whatsoever. If all the time and effort doing this was actually spent on useful things to help black lives it would be 10000x more effective. Instead all that time and effort is being flushed down the toilet.

It is meaningful in ways that are not measured in development time. There is a genuine effort to be less offensive regardless of how big of an impact it currently makes, or how meaningless individuals may believe it to be.

I think there is disagreement over whether "master record" is offensive, and frustration that time and energy are wasted arguing over it (as commenters here are doing).

Person months*, you can’t say that anymore.

You're then forced to maintain a fork because of someone else's immaturity. That's not a solution to the problem.

I feel like complaining about a disagreement in direction of an open source project while not wanting to put effort in directing it in the way you like via the normal channels, forking or contribution, to be immature.

I feel like demanding contribution as a response to criticism of open source software is immature. Just because you decided to let everyone see and use your code, doesn't mean someone can't say something negative about it. That is not some sort of privilege reserved for contributors.

So what are the downsides of git changing this?

How is this going to impact your day to day work flow?

"Lemme go run main" is now ambiguous. The main entry point? Or the main branch?

>Just because you decided to let everyone see and use your code, doesn't mean someone can't say something negative about it. That is not some sort of privilege reserved for contributors.

Of course not. It's just extremely immature when there are direct ways via work and effort (forking or contributing) to gain social capital in the community to influence change and direction.

>> I would rather see projects and people stand their ground instead of caving to pressure anytime a twitter mob comes along.

You didn't respond to this in any way.

How do we know "they caved to pressure" as opposed to "were convinced of the merits of making the change"? Like I said, if enough people don't like this change, they can start their own fork called originalgit or something. It would be fairly easy to backport changes to it. Let the market decide whether the default branch should be called "master" or "main". Or, you could start a twitter campaign about how "main" reminds you of the Spanish colonization of the Americas and all the attendant horrors of that. Worse than the Atlantic slave trade? Maybe! If you can convince enough people that "main" is bad, maybe they'll switch it back.