Re: [PATCH 00/28] Use main as default branch name

> On 19/11/2020 11:10, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes:
>>
>>> On 19/11/2020 01:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> An alternative in the other direction is to go with the 'not currently
>>>>> on any branch' (detached at nowhere) but then require users to
>>>>> deliberately create their first branch with their chosen name. This
>>>>> moves the 'backward incompatibility' to a different place, which may be
>>>>> easier to manage.
>>>> As has already been mentioned by Peff, I do not think that is a
>>>> workable alternative, especially given that people are generally
>>>> afraid of and easily get confused by being on a detached HEAD.
>>> Yes, our use of the technical phrase 'detached HEAD' is confusing,
>>> compared with the more pleasant 'not on any branch', or 'not at a branch
>>> tip'. Such is the curse of knowledge.
>> To me "not on a branch [tip]" is also confusing, as in fact you are, as
>> is easily seen after you perform a few commits, and now HEAD points
>> directly to the tip of the branch (that has no other references).
>>
>> I wonder why Git didn't rather adopt "unnamed branch" or "nameless
>> branch" to describe this mode of operation?
> Given the ephemeral nature of branches they sound like good
> suggestion.

>
> However I suspect "history" to be the "why" of the current 'detached
> head' usage.
> Maybe it's a side reference to Nearly Headless Nick or other discussions
> of the time (aka lost in history)?