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 AEEF31F5AE for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729379AbgFPQrR (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:47:17 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:33532 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728861AbgFPQrR (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:47:17 -0400 Received: (qmail 23895 invoked by uid 109); 16 Jun 2020 16:47:16 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:47:16 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 14678 invoked by uid 111); 16 Jun 2020 16:47:16 -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 12:47:16 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:47:15 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, James Ramsay , Bryan Turner Subject: Re: Consensus on a new default branch name Message-ID: <20200616164715.GA678873@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20200615205722.GG71506@syl.local> <20200615212154.GA79696@syl.local> <20200616143107.GL666057@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200616161001.fa5wa2br5ois2csr@chatter.i7.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200616161001.fa5wa2br5ois2csr@chatter.i7.local> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:10:01PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:31:07AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > > My biggest concern here was trying to understand what could break. > > Having read the patches from Johannes and thought about it a lot, I have > > a pretty good handle on where Git itself cares about the name. And I > > feel pretty confident that we can make the change in a way that won't > > cause problems there (and in fact, I think some of the code will be > > made more robust by relying on HEAD more appropriately). > > > > There's a more open question of what _else_ will break in the ecosystem. > > What if we work on making this configurable for now, but stick with the > legacy name until we introduce breaking sha1 changes? Almost everything > will need to retool for those anyway (and all documentation rewritten), > so it is reasonable to bundle these changes to happen at the same time. I think that's a potential timetable we might use. It would be easier to consider if we actually had a timetable for the sha1 changes. :) But I certainly agree that if the timing works out favorably, switching both defaults at once, with a big version number bump, would be nice. I do think that the branch name change will have more far-reaching effects on documentation than a hash change. Mostly because hashes are random-looking garbage from a user's perspective anyway. So aside from people dealing with hash transitions, we'll mostly just need to update any hard-coded values in tutorials, examples, etc. Whereas I think the word "master" creeps into a lot of more substantive discussions as a synonym for "the main branch". -Peff