I care, because it introduced a ton of unnecessary pain into my workflow. Yes really. I now have a mix of repos using `master` and `main`, and I have to remember which one to use.
One repo uses `master` but a subtree uses `main`. If you make a mistake and checkout `main` you end up clobbering your whole working tree with the subtree.
I also have tooling that used to happily assume `master`, which worked fine 99% of the time. Now it works 50% of the time, and even worse the name of the main branch is just a convention, so you can't even read a setting to see which one to use.
I don't care about the specific name. `main` would definitely have made more sense from the start (classic terrible Git naming). But I do care about pointlessly changing it and breaking everything.
One repo uses `master` but a subtree uses `main`. If you make a mistake and checkout `main` you end up clobbering your whole working tree with the subtree.
I also have tooling that used to happily assume `master`, which worked fine 99% of the time. Now it works 50% of the time, and even worse the name of the main branch is just a convention, so you can't even read a setting to see which one to use.
I don't care about the specific name. `main` would definitely have made more sense from the start (classic terrible Git naming). But I do care about pointlessly changing it and breaking everything.