> For some people changing master -> main isn't a nothing burger, it's actively harmful.
I constantly have pain — years after the Summer of Floyd — from repos I follow which change the name of their master branch from ‘master’ to ‘main,’ which breaks all sorts of tooling, sometimes silently (my local copies stay on ‘master,’ and never get updates), sometimes noisily.
That switching is actively harmful.
> Some people genuinely love the name master and want it to stay and yes, that is weird.
I don’t particularly love it, but it is the correct name for the master version (as opposed to a local copy, or a remote copy, or a feature branch, or a custom branch, or whatever) of a repo.
How is introducing a breaking change "a nothingburger", but resisting a breaking change "a hill to die on"?
It's a breaking change, requiring me to fix CI, local copies, scripts and so on. It really doesn't matter if you rename "master" to "main", or "main" to "GloriousLeaderXiJinping". Just don't, it's harmful because it's a breaking change for no reason.
The change already happened, you're not resisting anything anymore. You're just being annoying.
> Just don't, it's harmful because it's a breaking change for no reason.
If only it were this simple. Many people got pissed off when Github changed their default. For NEW repos. Clearly, many people have more emotional skin in the game than you're willing to admit.
I constantly have pain — years after the Summer of Floyd — from repos I follow which change the name of their master branch from ‘master’ to ‘main,’ which breaks all sorts of tooling, sometimes silently (my local copies stay on ‘master,’ and never get updates), sometimes noisily.
That switching is actively harmful.
> Some people genuinely love the name master and want it to stay and yes, that is weird.
I don’t particularly love it, but it is the correct name for the master version (as opposed to a local copy, or a remote copy, or a feature branch, or a custom branch, or whatever) of a repo.