Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 2:05 PM Patricia B. C. <pati.camsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hello! >> My name is Patricia and I work as a software engineer in Brazil. I >> also teach sometimes at Le Wagon, a programming school. >> I brought the discussion about changing our repositories' branch to >> main instead of master. The response of one of the owners was that >> "Git has not changed it, so we will not change". So here I was, >> wondering if maybe Git would hear me out :) >> Do you have any thoughts on it? > > There have been a lot of discussions about this topic. You can find > some pointers to them (though maybe not the most recent ones) in the > article "The history of `master` in Git" in: > > https://git.github.io/rev_news/2020/07/29/edition-65/ > > There has been also an official statement by the Conservancy and the > Git PLC (Project Leadership Committee): > > https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/jun/23/gitbranchname/ I got an impression that Patricia wanted to follow what we do to this project, but AFAIU, both of the above are about what Git does to help end-user projects to rename. They do not talk about what branch this project uses. A much more relevant direct reference is the brian's assessment for us to switch in Edition 65, plus the test clean-up series from Dscho. Having said all that, imitating what we do to our project may probably not be a good idea. We have done, and we will do in the future, experimental things, some of which may turn out to be bad ideas [*1*]. The users are probably better off imitating projects with larger developer base. [Footnote] *1* subtree merging of gitk and git-gui, for an example, and having an octopus merge in the history is another.
