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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2020, 22:47 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2VJOd3N2zaj8YPv0iLOqTF7vWyZ=zPd9vd0+qO1DbEVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87r1oraewl.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:10 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

>
> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > This is the big one. This changes the default of init.defaultBranch to main,
> > reflecting what many open source projects already did (which was followed by
> > GitHub, Azure Repos and others).
>
> Can we please not simply replace one hard coded branch name with
> another?

I thought precisely the same thing.

This should be easy to do if we make "origin" be a pseudo ref that points to "origin/HEAD" (and we could introduce "origin/@").

That way there will never be a need to type "origin/master", or having it as an upstream, you can simply set "origin" as the upstream tracking "branch".

Show 7 quoted lines

> I don't look in on the git list very often so perhaps I am missing a
> conversation where all of the details were thought through.  If so
> please point me at that conversation.  Otherwise can we please use this
> opportunity to come up with something that is actually better than
> naming the default branch main, rather than just something just as
> awkward whose only advantage is that people don't think it is
> politically incorrect this week.

This is the thread:

https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvBenA-1fcqeDV==apdWDg@mail.gmail.com/

Unfortunately in my opinion the most important topics--like your suggestion--were not even mentioned. Everyone focused on the wrong thing (e.g. what would be a better name for "master").

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras