>Well yes, of course, we agree vigorously on this. I ask you: how does one grant these control freaks the least possible power? Clearly bowing to their every wh

>Well yes, of course, we agree vigorously on this. I ask you: how does one grant these control freaks the least possible power? Clearly bowing to their every whim is a losing approach: if someone wants to pick a fight with me about the use of the term "blacklist", very well, they'll get their fight, because I won't stop. I've been wondering about this myself. It seems to be part of a communist-adjacent power grab. The objective is to install useful idiots in all the right places so certain people can use fear to keep others in line, and ultimately advance more ambitious agendas of oppression. I'm still doing research on this subject. I just found a blog today at https://newdiscourses.com https://newdiscourses.com that seems dedicated to fighting this fight. It's relatively high-IQ stuff. Anyway I agree that "trunk" is a better name than "master" or "main" for a new version control system, at least if it uses "branch" terminology. But git has been established for many years and we are only talking about an inconvenient change because of activists. Simply ignoring the activists and continuing as usual is not "granting them power"... Unless you are making a change away from something else over to "master" naming lol. Unfortunately, there is no consistent meaning for what the master/main branch actually is out in the wild. It could be the stable branch or it could be the development branch, or it could be an old ref retained out of fear by someone who decided to jump on the renaming bandwagon. But I think for developer-centric projects, master is the stable dev branch. For user-centric project, it is often the last stable release branch. Both of these make sense.