Re: [PATCH] revisions: add @{default} shorthand for default branch

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2026, 20:23 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1pj8b22h.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <pull.2183.git.git.1769700352081.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

"Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

Show 22 quoted lines

> From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
>
> Git already has shorthands like @{upstream} and @{push} to refer to
> tracking branches, but there is no convenient way to refer to the
> default branch of a repository (typically "main" or "master").
>
> Users often want to switch to the default branch regardless of its
> name, especially when working across repositories with different
> default branch names. Currently they must either hardcode the branch
> name or query it via configuration, which is cumbersome.
>
> Add a new @{default} shorthand that resolves to the default branch
> as determined by init.defaultBranch (or falls back to "main" or
> "master" depending on Git version). This allows users to write:
>
>   git checkout @{default}
>
> instead of having to know or look up the default branch name.
>
> The implementation follows the same pattern as @{upstream} and @{push},
> using a new branch_get_default() function that queries the default
> branch name and verifies it exists in the repository.

But @{upstream} and @{push} are inherently very different from what you are adding, aren't they? Asking for topic1@{upstream} and topic2@{upstream} makes quite a lot of sense, because the meaning of @{upstream} depends on "which branch's upstream are you talking about???". But I suspect that asking for topic1@{default} and expect it would be different from topic2@{default} is nonsense, as "the default" is not per branch but is an attribute of a repository. In other words, <branch>@{default} may by itself be a nonsense query. Are you rejecting a non-empty <branch> that may appear before @{default} as an error?

After cloning an upstream project, those who dislike the local branch name 'master' often rename it to something else, like

    $ git branch -m master main

and be happy, without configuring "init.defaultbranch". After all, that configuration variable affects newly created repositories, so after renaming 'master' to 'main', it is too late anyway. In such a repository, if you say @{default}, what should happen? As 'master' branch no longer exist, even though it is the @{default}, should it error out? Does your implementation error out?

Also I do not quite see how this would be useful in practice. Given that the names of local branches are under control of the local end user and not upstream projects, I would imagine that the primary branch used by a user is of per-user nature, not per repository. In other words, instead of having to do "git branch -m" after cloning, you may do "git config --global init.defaultBranch" just once and keep using the same default name. Under that condition, "can I ask what default branch name this repository uses, so that I can work on that branch" is rarely needed, if you are writing a script to use in many of your repositories, isn't it?

So, I am not sure. I wouldn't mind too terribly if <name>@{default} is rejected, but I do not imagine many people using it.