MOOOOM! Github wants to rename the master branch!!!

I didn't even bat an eye at this, because this feels like the typical feel-good stuff big tech companies do to avoid having to actually deal with issues. So the CEO of Github tweeted about looking into ways to change the default branch's name from "master" to something else.

This is in line with several tech companies suddenly realizing that terminology such as "master/slave" "whitelist/blacklist" can be problematic. There is an argument to be had, that the name "master" of git's default branch is more in line with the term's use to describe the original source of a work. E.g. the gold-master of a music album. But git's use of the word actually is inherited from BitKeeper, where the "master/slave" metaphor was in use.

But all of this doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Or not for marginalized groups at least. This is all just feelgood stuff for Silicon Valley folks. So I wanted to ignore it... and then the discussions happened.

Oh my fucking god. People jumped to the worst possible interpretation of this suggestion. "THEY WILL FORCIBLY MODIFY ALL OUR REPOSITORIES AND BREAK OUR SHIT". Lol no shut the fuck up they won't. Github's sole reason for existence is to provide some hosting space for your shit. They won't modify it. Whats more likely is that Github will change the default OR PROVIDE AN OPTION to set the default branch's name when creating a new project. This would be in line with the way Gitlab is handling this.

And guess what? This breaks nothing. Plus you can now name your default branch whatever. No matter the reason for naming it something else, this is actually a pretty useful feature.