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,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 79EC61F5AE for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:38:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728965AbgFPOiT (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:38:19 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:33358 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727077AbgFPOiT (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:38:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 22896 invoked by uid 109); 16 Jun 2020 14:38:17 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:38:17 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 13670 invoked by uid 111); 16 Jun 2020 14:38:17 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:38:17 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:38:16 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Nomen Nescio , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Consensus on a new default branch name Message-ID: <20200616143816.GN666057@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <6b6f161981a07070871633fe02c4c3f9@dizum.com> <20200616022239.GD164606@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200616022239.GD164606@google.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 07:22:39PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > In Git, we make most decisions by a rough consensus of active > contributors, as judged by the maintainer.[...] Thanks for writing this out. I agree completely with how you described the decision making process. We do bear the responsibility to think carefully about our users, and to respect their time, and their expectations that things don't break. But as with any feature, it's a juggling act between stability and progress that developers and the maintainer must deal with. Somebody might not care about this name change, but likewise, others might not care about a particular technical feature. At some point users have to put their trust in Git's developers that the end product will be stable and useful. If we break that trust too much, then forking is an option, as you note. Our track record has been pretty good so far, and I think if we approach this change carefully, it can continue to be. -Peff