I feel like this could be misleading, as the main branch has none of the guarantees that stable has. It's released as nightly, and has to go through ~6 weeks of freezing & bugchecking as a beta release before it becomes stable.
For this reason, I would argue against the default branch being called stable - it isn't stable.
Even naming it "nightly" would be relatively bad, though. I think there's an important differentiation between released versions and the in-development tree: released versions have gone through at least some vetting, and are frozen. Sure, the only vetting for nightly is "it's built", but that's still something slightly more frozen than the current development branch.
If it was the same concept as a release, I would agree with you that using the same wording would be good. But the development / main branch is a distinct concept with different connotations, and I'd thus argue that using the same wording is harmful rather than helpful.
I hard-coded "master" in my git alias which is used to fetch only that default branch from every repository.
Does I need to add an exception or what in case we change default branch name?
Following what the git tool prefer is kinda good for most people. If you wanna change git default branch, please start by convincing git developers first.
There is no master/slave relationship between branches imo, even if it came indirectly from a project which did, that is to far fetched for anyone to even think about.
Yes slavery was something that should not have happened, but we should not ban every word related to slavery. We might as well ban the word farm because slaves used to work on a farm(correct me if there is a relevant difference between the words that I am missing)
EDIT:
For a project like rust it might make sense to call the default branch "nightly" since thats what all the nightly releases are based on. If that change ware made I'd be all for it.
Moderation note: All right, this is clearly descending into an unproductive tit-for-tat discussion that has already been played out on the Internet at large. (I have removed some comments that are veering a bit off course.) I don't see any value in continuing it here.
If and when the core team decides to act on this, it sounds like a discussion will open up in the proper forum, as mentioned above. Until then, let's cool it on this topic please.