Also, git's "master" branch is named after a master recording or master copy, the canonical original from which duplicates are made. There is literally no reason for it be offensive except for those who retroactively associate the word with slavery.

At Meta, when this mass push for the rename happened across the industry, a few people spent nearly the full year just shepherding the renaming of master to main, and white box/black box to allowlist/blocklist.

This let them claim huge diff counts and major contributions to DEI and get promos.

Im just tuning out of the whole master vs main discussion. I use whatever is the default branch name of my current project OR what git init gives me. When / if git init produces a default branch named main, i'll use that.

In current times, there will be more people offended that some prefer to use "main" rather than "master", than people that will be offended if "master" is used

Thank you for creating the containment thread.

not on your mind, yet you found the time to write this comment

are you sure this is about time/breaking and not "being told how to think"?

Haven't got enough hours to type fewer characters, but have got plenty of time to go karma-fishing about it on an almost barely tangentially relevant HN thread. Cool.

> But, my fear is it'll subtly break something and I just don't have enough hours left in my life to accept yet unknown risk that it'll cost me even more hours,

Yeah, it's not like 99% of the world has already switched from master to main already (without any major problems) ...

[flagged]