That's still the default in my localhost, but I get a warning that it'll change.

You can set it in the config to whatever you want and the warning goes away.

The whole default branch name change was a terrible idea that caused many more problems than it solved—as was already pointed out at the time.

But if you're going to set a name anyway, may as well call it trunk, or dominatrix, depending upon today's silliness level.

Why?

There are advantages beyond avoiding the use of a charged term.

It wasn't a charged term and there are not.

there are no advantages, and the massive disadvantage of having to try both every time you encounter a new repository or forget which one it is.

to be fair, I like typing less, and main is shorter than master.

such as?

It wasn't anyways. It was clearly in reference to "master copy", which is also not a charged term. Neither was "master bedroom". Hell, for most of my life I'd never even seen anyone raise objections over the master/slave dichotomy used in software and hardware either, which is a far easier to understand argument. It's all very recent, last decade and some change, despite many of these terms having come into use after the abolishment of slavery in the U.S.

The word "master" is of course still in widespread use elsewhere too. We still say "Master's degree" or "mastering a skill".

The point of this entire exercise was group dynamics, but what I hate most about it is something that I also hate about other recent bullshit: I hate that not wanting to play is in itself forced to be an active stance. I have no reason or desire to change my default branch name; it is staying master. That is not an attempt to signal anything at all. This is not "chud-coded". It is literally, the absence of a desire to participate.

And we'll never forget it either, because now even in pre-existing projects we have to checkout/pull master then main. Or worse. You know how many times I've accidentally rebased off of an ancient version of something because master still exists? This is surprisingly common.

It was an entire waste of time and everyone who has remaining respect for themselves should be honest about it.

> It is literally, the absence of a desire to participate.

I agree with this position, and yet I would argue that, by taking the time to write out this comment, you are acting inconsistenly with your own statement.

I have old repos with "master" and new repos with "main". If someone were to approach me about one of the old repos and ask about the default branch, I would immediately change it to "main" without any hesitation, because it is all but certain that trying to get into an argument will waste more of my time than just doing the change would.

My desire to not participate does not mean that I don't want to ever talk about it or that I am trying to minimize time wasted arguing about it. Hell, I'm happy to waste time arguing about anything, really. Especially if it's something that annoys me.

What if someone asked you the same about a new repo?

> I have no reason or desire to change my default branch name

And you're absolutely entitled to. I have no problem with anyone choosing to stick with "master", provided they have no issue with me preferring "main".

But I do have an issue with you preferring `main`. It means I have the constant annoyance of remembering whether a project uses `main` or `master`.

It's not a big annoyance but it is an especially painful one because it didn't used to exist and it was deliberately introduced for completely bullshit reasons.