On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 09:20:20AM -0300, Sérgio Augusto Vianna wrote: > There's nothing to be resolved because there is no problem. If someone reads > "master" and gets triggered because all they can think of is racism, that > person needs therapy. Well, to be honest, if the software was written in German and used perfectly innocuous German words for "leader/worker" (fuhrer/arbeiter), I'm sure a lot more Europeans would get "triggered," as you say. We are not some kind of emotionless species, so historical connotations behind words do matter -- so it is not a "waste of effort" to have these discussions. I support moving away from "master" for the default branch name -- and that is regardless of the negative connotations behind the word. Frankly, the word "master" is not very descriptive for the default branch name: - most English-as-a-second-language speakers don't know the meaning of "master copy," so even if we stick to this interpretation of the word "master", then it's obscure and arbitrary to most new users of Git - having a branch named "master" is already not required, so any existing software that expects there to always be a "master" branch is already broken and wouldn't get any more broken by the move away towards more descriptive terminology - as it stands, the "master" branch does not have any special meaning anyway. It may or may not exist, and even if it exists, its contents can be arbitrarily stale. You almost always have to check which branch you want for your needs, so the implication of "master copy" is largely meaningless in many workflows anyway. Grosso modo, I see having a more descriptive branch name than "master" for the "default branch" as an improvement for the project in general. Making this configurable should assure full backwards compatibility to existing workflows. -K
