Re: js/init-defaultbranch-advice, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2020, #01; Tue, 8)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 9, 2020, 21:57 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqft4e1w2j.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2012091510280.25979@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> * js/init-defaultbranch-advice (2020-11-24) 4 commits
>>  - init: provide useful advice about init.defaultBranch
>>  - get_default_branch_name(): prepare for showing some advice
>>  - branch -m: allow renaming a yet-unborn branch
>>  - init: document `init.defaultBranch` better
>>
>>  Our users are going to be trained to prepare for future change of
>>  init.defaultBranch configuration variable.
>>
>>  Expecting a reroll.
>>  cf. <xmqq8saqjx2n.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
>>  I think a new advice.defaultBranchName is a bad idea.
>
> Unfortunately, this objection is news to me. Why would it be anything but
> a legitimate interest to say "yeah, whatever, Git, just use the default
> branch name, I'm fine with it"?

Message sent on Nov 24 is a news to you now?

Anyway, I do not think those users who said "I'm fine with it" would be fine when the switchover happens outside their control.

If they are truly fine, we could invent init.defaultBranch=:random that chooses a random branch name and point HEAD at it, and make that the default. Those who are fine do not really care what name the initial branch gets would be fine with that as well, but you would agree that it is an absurd alternative, no? I find it equally absurd to say "switch to a new name any time without telling me, I am fine with it".