Why? To make people type more letters and waste their employer's time?
For the record; I still use master branch for personal projects. But trying to impose it on anyone else is madman-levels of obsession that you might want to work out with a therapist. It simply does not matter to anyone with actually relevant priorities.
Not really, "master" is about as indistinct of a term as "merge" and "rebase" are. There are huge amounts of git ergononics that can be improved and master branch is one of them.
If it wasn't for muscle memory and my bash aliases, I'd be using main too. Get a life and stop bitching about default environment variables, it's a huge red-flag to employers.
We aren't going to rehash the whole history here and it's disingenuous to try discussing the accuracy / pertinence of the word master here when that wasn't what originated the change in the first place.
If you can't formulate an argument as to why "master" is meaningfully better than "main", you are no better than the culture warriors who insisted on changing it in the first place.
I'm not asking you to justify something that was unjustified in the first place -- I'm asking you to justify what you're asking people to do now. Why is it worth everyone's time and effort to migrate back to using "master" rather than "main"?
Comments
Why? To make people type more letters and waste their employer's time?
For the record; I still use master branch for personal projects. But trying to impose it on anyone else is madman-levels of obsession that you might want to work out with a therapist. It simply does not matter to anyone with actually relevant priorities.
It wasn't obsessive to change it in the first place?
Not really, "master" is about as indistinct of a term as "merge" and "rebase" are. There are huge amounts of git ergononics that can be improved and master branch is one of them.
If it wasn't for muscle memory and my bash aliases, I'd be using main too. Get a life and stop bitching about default environment variables, it's a huge red-flag to employers.
We aren't going to rehash the whole history here and it's disingenuous to try discussing the accuracy / pertinence of the word master here when that wasn't what originated the change in the first place.
If you can't formulate an argument as to why "master" is meaningfully better than "main", you are no better than the culture warriors who insisted on changing it in the first place.
How/why to justify something that was unjustified in the first place?
I'm not asking you to justify something that was unjustified in the first place -- I'm asking you to justify what you're asking people to do now. Why is it worth everyone's time and effort to migrate back to using "master" rather than "main"?
To remove the political prejudice injected into it.
Ask Linus Torvalds.