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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 17, 2020, 23:16 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3750bSdmw4A=KU=UgffOPiQwB8ECk9YRPe8mh50Og8Ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv9e34mq5.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 4:57 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> > - The branch name that is somewhat meaningful to the creator of the git
> >   repo.
> >
> >   I have at least two repos where I wound up doing this by hand.  So at
> >   least for me it is something I am doing anyway.
>
> Direct "other side" of the coin is that the name meaningful to the
> creator may be different from project to project, so those who want
> to try peeking projects that are so far unknown to them will have to
> guess what that meaningful thing is.  When visiting a random github
> repository and presented by 47 different branches, it would be more
> helpful for such a visitor to have a reliable "this is likely to be
> the primary integration branch" cue.  Not having a convention is
> worse than having a convention some folks may find suboptimal from
> usability's point of view.

But a convention is just that: a convention.

If we already know "origin/HEAD" is very likely pointing to the integration branch, then why do we need to know what that branch is called in that particular project?

Just refer to that branch as "origin/@", or just "origin".

That would work for projects that follow the convention, and those who don't. Why does the tool need to care?

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras