From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C861FA17 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727495AbgKRXpn (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2020 18:45:43 -0500 Received: from smtp.hosts.co.uk ([85.233.160.19]:43443 "EHLO smtp.hosts.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726527AbgKRXpm (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2020 18:45:42 -0500 Received: from host-89-243-187-160.as13285.net ([89.243.187.160] helo=[192.168.1.37]) by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1kfX8u-0008q2-AS; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:45:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] Use main as default branch name To: Junio C Hamano , "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin References: <87r1oraewl.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> From: Philip Oakley Message-ID: <1389dabc-33c9-1e65-a3de-43729a6c2e70@iee.email> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:45:37 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 17/11/2020 22:55, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I personally > do not like the word 'main' used as such, but the rest of the world > seems to be moving in that direction, I feel that 'main' is rather a rather dull and boring sort of word. In that sense, it could be useful as the fall back for those who haven't yet got a clear view of what they want to call their first born. So I sort of support both views. 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. -- Philip