On 2020-11-13 at 00:04:23, Felipe Contreras wrote: > *If* we are going to rename the master branch, it should be with a > good reason, after discussing it appropriately, in a major release > (i.e. Git 3.0), after a period of deprecation, and a big warning to > invite users to provide feedback about the important upcoming change. > We can hedge these types of changes with a "core.mode=next" > configuration, as I argued back in 2013. [3] When the original email that proposed this change came up, I did suggest that this would be suitable for a Git 3.0. I think such a version number bump would be valuable, but I know that Git doesn't follow semantic versioning and I'm happy for Junio to make the call. Git has made incompatible changes in the past in non-major versions, so there is precedent for this, although I agree it has the potential to be surprising. Again, I defer to Junio's judgment here. I should point out that there is an option to test or set this already, with init.defaultBranch. I have used this feature for testing in the past, and I use the feature now to set default branches. It's also possible to use the template functionality to set a default branch name for new repositories and I've tested support for this back to at least Git 2.0 (but I believe it goes back even farther). And, of course, either of these options can be used for developers to choose the branch name which meets the needs of the project best. As for consultation with users, there was a discussion about this on the list a few months back and we did get a lot of input from various parties. Some of that feedback was hostile and inappropriate and some even violated our code of conduct in my view, as is all too common with potentially controversial topics, and I'm not eager to repeat such a discussion, since I don't think it's going to result in a productive, positive outcome. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Houston, Texas, US
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
