On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 05:27:01PM +0300, Oleg wrote: > > > Here are facts: > > 2. Branch naming is entirely the choice of individual repository > > maintainers. Some prefer not to have a "master" branch, and it's not > > Some :-)? This "some" are very few people/projects and no one of them have > serious reasons to do it(it pampering). It doesn't matter how few repositories need it. If you've been on this list, you would have seen patches being submitted and accepted that fix bugs in corner cases that can't possibly be experienced by the vast majority of Git users. > > simply because of "political correctness" reasons as everyone > > insists: > > You are simply lie, because i don't think that you don't understand that this > statement is wrong. If so, why this "useful" feature didn't appear earlier? So > many people/projects suffer without it all time until today, isn't it? For the same reason any other useful feature didn't appear earlier. Nobody has brought it up or spent enough time considering it. > > - they may want to use localized names for all their naming > > conventions (using Cyrillic, Hanzi, Kana, whatever) > > No. They wann't. Tell you as cyrillic user, some conventions exist that > branches and tags should be in ASCII(no one with a sane mind want to > not to do so). And if you want to make a public repo and collaborate > with others you will use ASCII in any case. Otherwise nobody understand you. 1C scripting language is written entirely in Russian. Many official Russian sites use .рф domain names. If someone wants to make all their branch names in Cyrillic, why should we prevent them from doing so? > > 3. In your example, "millions and billions" of scripts are already wrong > > if they assume that there is always a "master" branch. However, it > > May be they assume this, because about 15 years master branch was *always* > here, didn't think about it :-D? And nobody told that somebody will come and > break it somewhen. Very soon we'll break git hashes from being sha1 by default. Just because they've been sha1 for the past 15 years doesn't mean we shouldn't or can't do it. > > 4. In Git, local branch names do not need to map to remote branch > > names. Your local branch "upstream" can track remote branch > > "development". If the remote branch gets renamed, you simply > > update your configuration and continue without change. > > We have so little problems and difficulties, that yet another one willn't > make our life more hard. Then raise this with your upstream repository -- it's not a Git issue. -K
