Btw. The default branch, if it must have a new default label - how about calling it “default”? Sent from my iPhone > On 14 Jun 2020, at 16:59, Thomas Adam <thomas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 18:22, Simon Pieters <simon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> To avoid offensive terminology and to avoid further inconsistency, I >> think git should use a different branch name than "master" when >> initiating a repo. I don't have a strong opinion, but I like "main" >> since it shares the first two characters and it's shorter. > > Hi Simon, > > Definitely agree, and thanks for starting this. > > One question that's been rattling round my mind is how we change the > documentation to suit. By that, I mean, it has become common parlance > at the moment to say "master" as the canonical branch, because that's > the one that's been baked as the default. Now that we're making this > configurable, I'm curious how we're going to change our semantics to > match the "default" branch (which was "master") when talking about git > branches, either here on the list, or in documentation. > > Kindly, > Thomas
