demerphq <demerphq@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > kind of confusion. Consider how this conversation goes for us: > > A: "No you need to fetch trunk from the remote, then you need to merge > it to your local trunk and then push it to the master trunk". > B: "Ok." Hmph, why isn't the last one "trunk trunk"? > Similarly when the perl project migrated to git we renamed "master" to > "blead" to reduce the possibility "master master" confusion. Or put it differently, "your local master? remote master? or the primary master?" would be a way to state the phrase A asked in the example without renaming the name for the primary branch to 'trunk'. What I am trying to get at is, after changing the name that is given by default to the primary branch in a newly created repositories by "git init" to 'main' (which I am OK with, and it seems that the major projects and repository hosting services will be doing anyway with or without getting themselves in this discussion on this list), wouldn't we risk the same "master master" confusion caused by and to those newer users who learn 'main' is the word given to the primary thing? Wouldn't you teach your users to fetch 'main' from the remote, merge it to the local 'main' and then push it to the 'main' main?
