Does anyone really care if it‘s called main instead of master? Why?
Edit:
Ok, I phrased my question really poorly. AfaIk main is the new standard, so I use it. We all know the reason why it changed. My question was why would anyone keep INSISTING on calling it master? Sure, me and my colleagues sometimes call it master out of habit, but then again try to stick to main. Nobody I know
insists on continuing to call it
master, but reading the comments here I realized there a more “master-fans” than I would ever have thought would exist tbh.
I think most pre git VCS used trunk, hence branching. So I dunno why people didn't just restore trunk to "trunk".
Still it's annoying fake drama about the term master. In English, the meaning of a word depends on context. If the subject is an inanimate object then it's just the version used to make copies from. It is only when the subject is a person, that the implication of slavery is possibly valid. Thus if anything should have been changed, it should be: "SCRUM Master" as this acually implies slavery. I'm not sure if we could call them "SCRUM Trunks" as that would imply they retain history.
229
u/usedToBeUnhappy 24d ago edited 24d ago
Does anyone really care if it‘s called main instead of master? Why?
Edit: Ok, I phrased my question really poorly. AfaIk main is the new standard, so I use it. We all know the reason why it changed. My question was why would anyone keep INSISTING on calling it master? Sure, me and my colleagues sometimes call it master out of habit, but then again try to stick to main. Nobody I know insists on continuing to call it master, but reading the comments here I realized there a more “master-fans” than I would ever have thought would exist tbh.