If we visualize Git as a flow of branches from a single point in history, then names like default and main are more accurate. I would even use origin, but it's usually reserved for Git remotes when forking repositories. For myself, a branch called master would tell that branch has total control over other branches which is not the case with Git.
The push back in this issue is very typical human behaviour visible in many discussions in our society. When someone declares that eating red meat is bad for you, there usually is at least one stating how they will grow their meat consumption just to arouse reaction and potentially ease their insecurity.
Let's strive for a more inclusive future in tech and make software that is painless to evolve as time goes by.
When I was first learning git I found master to be wholly unhelpful in helping me grasp the concepts.
I also feel like when I was getting familiar with continuous integration I again would have gripped things better if explicit and purposeful main and secondary branch naming were a thing instead of the master terminology.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.