Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jun 15 2020, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> > >> +core.mainBranch:: >> + The name of the main (or: primary) branch in the current repository. >> + For historical reasons, `master` is used as the fall-back for this >> + setting. > > Everywhere else in git-config(1) we just say something to the effect of > the more brief: > > The name of the main (or: primary) branch in the current repository > (`master` by default). > > I think we should do the same here for consistency & ease of reading. > > As you note at the start of this series we're not changing the default > yet, so referring to the current default as historical is putting the > cart before the horse as far as producing self-contained patch serieses > goes. Very good point. In [*1*], I gave a potential outline of how a transition plan might look like (if we were to transition, that is), but what is written as step 1. in there should be split into two: step 0, in which the mechanisms (1) to change the default name used for the first branch and (2) to specify the primary branch that is special-cased by a few commands are introduced, without any future plan, and step 1, in which warning and/or advice messages knudge the users and hint the future direction. Thanks. [Reference] *1* https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqeeqiztpq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
