Have you even read what the proposed change is?
It allows changing the name of the branch that is created by git init
using a configuration variable. Nothing else.
It is also proposed to change the default for this variable in a future
release of git that is expected to have far more disruptive changes,
such as different hash used for commit IDs.
One is a rather massive change presumably to prevent collisions and fix
a potentially catastrophic failure of a repository, the other could
introduce rather massive breaking and disruptive changes..... because?
Trying to downplay that its just changing the name is rather
disingenuous especially with how much it is changing. Its not a simple
rename and breaks a base assumption which is not something that should
be done or allowed lightly.
Comparing disruptive changes that are to maintain the actual use and
function going forward of the software and one that appears to be fueled
solely by an emotional drive without any articulate technical merit so
far is an odd choice to make.
