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...)
Re:Configuring My Machines with Bashtard
by makeitdouble on Monday May 09, 2022 @10:36PM
(#31322752)
> 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.
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.
This reminds me, there's a somewhat inherent affiliation in the flamewar over the branch name master/main.
The people who use "master" clearly don't think it's a bad term to use, and probably think being upset over it is silly. Those who use "main" either think it's (to some extent) racist to use the word master, or don't want to be yelled at.
Whichever word you chose ultimately signals affiliation, and the other group will feel you don't recognise their frustration. -- I think the sensible people just ignore it.
Rather.. I think if you want to have a community where people with different cultural attitudes feel welcome, I think some toe-stepping is inevitable and unavoidable.