Though in the context of git, master is not intended to be a reference to master/slave [1], it is ostensibly widely mis-identified as such. The change therefore is being made by many as an attempt to be more inclusive. I pulled this [2] Bitbucket blog entry from the original article if you want to read what they have to say.

1. https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577?s=20

2. https://bitbucket.org/blog/moving-away-from-master-as-the-de...

I feel like on the one hand my opinion is "this is stupid and doesn't matter", which makes me think the change was not needed.

But also my opinion is "this is stupid and doesn't matter", which makes me not really care that they did I guess.

This change isn't done because master is super offensive or racist in the context of git. It's done to show some kind of support to the movement.

Might not much very much, but I think showing you care is something.

If it breaks a bit of shitty tooling that relies on hardcoded values, then I think we can live through that.

I think that propaganda got the better of you. But I can live with that if you can.

I care if stuff breaks for no good reason and this is one of them.

But Microsoft is establishing a history of being political correct instead of doing the sensible thing.

Calling the default branch master is a design choice and nothing more, if you think otherwise the problem is yours.

"ignorance is causing people to take offense when none was intended and instead of trying to educate people we can instead just make a greater effort to not offend them"