git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: The master branch rename, and avoiding another v1.6.0 git-foo fiasco

From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date
Nov 13, 2020, 01:01 UTC
Message-ID
<20201113010107.GL6252@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To
<CAMP44s3BJ3dGsLJ-6yA-Po459=+m826KD9an4+P3qOY1vkbxZg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2020-11-13 at 00:04:23, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> *If* we are going to rename the master branch, it should be with a
> good reason, after discussing it appropriately, in a major release
> (i.e. Git 3.0), after a period of deprecation, and a big warning to
> invite users to provide feedback about the important upcoming change.
> We can hedge these types of changes with a "core.mode=next"
> configuration, as I argued back in 2013. [3]

When the original email that proposed this change came up, I did suggest that this would be suitable for a Git 3.0. I think such a version number bump would be valuable, but I know that Git doesn't follow semantic versioning and I'm happy for Junio to make the call. Git has made incompatible changes in the past in non-major versions, so there is precedent for this, although I agree it has the potential to be surprising. Again, I defer to Junio's judgment here.

I should point out that there is an option to test or set this already, with init.defaultBranch. I have used this feature for testing in the past, and I use the feature now to set default branches. It's also possible to use the template functionality to set a default branch name for new repositories and I've tested support for this back to at least Git 2.0 (but I believe it goes back even farther). And, of course, either of these options can be used for developers to choose the branch name which meets the needs of the project best.

As for consultation with users, there was a discussion about this on the list a few months back and we did get a lot of input from various parties. Some of that feedback was hostile and inappropriate and some even violated our code of conduct in my view, as is all too common with potentially controversial topics, and I'm not eager to repeat such a discussion, since I don't think it's going to result in a productive, positive outcome.

-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US
Previous: Felipe ContrerasNext: Felipe Contreras
Message 2 of 25 in “The master branch rename, and avoiding another v1.6.0 git-foo fiasco”
  1. Felipe ContrerasNov 13, 2020
  2. brian m. carlsonNov 13, 2020
  3. Felipe ContrerasNov 13, 2020
  4. Theodore Y. Ts'oNov 13, 2020
  5. Felipe ContrerasNov 13, 2020
  6. Theodore Y. Ts'oNov 13, 2020
  7. Felipe ContrerasNov 13, 2020
  8. Michal SuchánekNov 13, 2020
  9. Lukasz NiemierNov 14, 2020
  10. Theodore Y. Ts'oNov 15, 2020
  11. Felipe ContrerasNov 15, 2020
  12. Brandon CaseyNov 19, 2020
  13. Peter HadlawNov 19, 2020
  14. Konstantin RyabitsevNov 19, 2020
  15. Junio C HamanoNov 19, 2020
  16. Felipe ContrerasNov 19, 2020
  17. Konstantin RyabitsevNov 20, 2020
  18. Brandon CaseyNov 19, 2020
  19. Felipe ContrerasNov 20, 2020
  20. Don Goodman-WilsonNov 13, 2020
  21. Ismael LucenoNov 20, 2020
  22. Felipe ContrerasNov 13, 2020
  23. Philippe BlainNov 13, 2020
  24. Felipe ContrerasNov 13, 2020
  25. WhinisNov 23, 2020

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.