Hey, thanks for the replies, guys. Yes, as Junio said, my intention was to understand a bit about what you were doing, so thank you for the explanation! The idea isn't really to imitate what you are doing, but just to use it as a benchmark to show that changing the name of the branch might not seem like an important thing, but it is a global movement that is being adopted by many renowned developers. Quoting one of the comments on the discussion topic I raised: "It's only the default name for repositories created inside GitHub. Since our students only create their repositories locally on their computers with Git, I don't see how GitHub's decision will affect them. If Git decides to change over from master to main, and there is an industry-wide push to adopt this change (which doesn't seem very likely to me), then I might agree with you" So, I just wanted to show that guy that this is an industry-wide push :) Best regards, Patricia Camiansky. De: Junio C Hamano Enviado:sexta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2021 23:27 Para: Martin von Zweigbergk Cc:Christian Couder; Patricia B. C.; git Assunto: Re: Can git change? Martin von Zweigbergk <martinvonz@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This is probably quite off topic for the thread, but I'm curious why > you think it was a bad idea to have octopus merges in git.git's > history (there seem to be 37 of them). Octoupi in our history, at least the older ones, solve no real life problem; it only gives us "now we have something cool-looking that other people's version control systems never had", which is of dubious value. And their presense makes bisection less efficient than it could be around them, which is a real downside.
