I think this discussion raises several interesting questions, two of which: “when is vocabulary non-inclusive?”, and “should vocabulary be changed accordingly even if the word doesn’t have an offensive origin?”. I have played and replayed several debates on the latter in my head over the last 24 hours and it always comes down to someone arguing “why not?” with the counter argument being “where does it end?”. To be honest I do not believe there to be a correct answer to these questions, and certainly not an answer that will last for more than a couple of years, maybe a decade. My personal belief is that inaction born from fear is always worse than action sprung from kindness (yes history has proven me wrong on multiple terrible occasions, I know) so I would say, change it, for a better world starts with the first step.

Not renaming the default branch of your version control system is not inaction. You should first ask: does it make sense and does it accomplish anything? While the cause is just, you still have the right to nuance your thoughts and actions, and not decide to ban words "just in case".

Let's be honest, the world isn't going to be better because the default branch of git is called main instead of master, but it will probably be slightly worse if you impoverish the language of hundreds of millions of people, which also happens to be the main international language.

As maushu said above there are much more meaningful targets.