Hi Thomas, On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Thomas Adam 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. This has been on my mind, too. It is a big reason why I keep mullin over the naming, like, a lot. In my mind, it will be helpful for people updating documentation out there to use terminology that was chosen with care. My current thinking is that "main branch" is the best description of what the construct is about, and "the default name of the main branch" is what we want to change. Ciao, Johannes
