On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 5:37 AM Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 05:02:59PM -0800, Brandon Casey wrote: > > > This *really* is not hard; which is why I am starting to suspect > > > people are really kvetching because their objections are really more > > > about the woke/anti-woke aspect of the "master" -> "main" migration > > > --- and they are using *think* the children^H^H^H^H^H^H^H users as a > > > rhetorical device. > > > > So we're changing the default branch name from "master" to "main"? > > To my knowledge, there are no concrete plans to change anything at this > time. All recent work was to remove any special-case treatment of > "master" as the default branch name, so people are free to use any > configuration they like. Glad to hear that. That doesn't seem to be the perspective that others have in this discussion thread though, especially since Theodore Ts'o referred to "...the "master" -> "main" migration" in his comment that I quoted above. Thanks for trying to respond to my questions, but I think your responses are mostly misdirected towards an issue that I was not referring to. That being the configurability of the default branch name, which I doubt anyone has a problem with, as opposed to changing the default branch name for all newly created repositories and possibly for the git repo itself for some supposed offensiveness of the word "master". That is what I consider silly. For example, when I asked "So we're changing the default branch name from "master" to "main"?" and then followed that up with "For what purpose?", the latter question was asking "For what purpose are we changing the default branch name from "master" to "main"?", and then "What problem are we trying to solve by changing the default branch name from "master" to "main"?" etc. -Brandon
