Git is derived from "Get" (as in "beget") which is another term for a bastard.
Watered down through the decades and much less sting, but the meaning is the same.
This reminds me, there's a somewhat inherent affiliation in the flamewar over the branch name master/main.
The people who use "master" clearly don't think it's a bad term to use, and probably think being upset over it is silly. Those who use "main" either think it's (to some extent) racist to use the word master, or don't want to be yelled at.
Whichever word you chose ultimately signals affiliation, and the other group will feel you don't recognise their frustration. -- I think the sensible people just ignore it.
Rather.. I think if you want to have a community where people with different cultural attitudes feel welcome, I think some toe-stepping is inevitable and unavoidable.
(Having said that, I still haven't gotten around to renaming all my existing repositories...)
This is the main fear in every org I have seen the debate play out.
Going to every single script and tool that touches git, check and update it isn’t free, nor completely devoid of risk. Even when everyone is one the same page about the right thing to do, it’s tough to prioritize over other actual production issues.
That people have feelings about a topic that's disproportionate to its significance is characteristic of a flame-war. It's natural for people to hold strong opinions on all sorts of stuff like this. It's very human.
