[thro949494i]

> Default branch

> Personally, I don’t have a problem with master

> updating the default value. I wish Git had some taste here, but they don't

So author has no preference, but git does not have a good taste here, for not breaking backward compatibility. Typical passive agresive bullshit!

I think "main" is not inclusive enough, we should use something like "non-specific-but-strong-branch". Or something that includes even stronger message. And change it every year (or month). It could be automated using github actions on all existing repos!

Also please rename "git" command, it is very insensitive word!!!

[randunel]

While your comment is in jest, I agree with the sentiment. The whole "main" debacle sucks and, to this day, still breaks everyone's git usage.

[superb_dev]

Honest question: What has it broken about your git usage? I haven’t really noticed a problem.

Sometimes a repo uses “main” and sometimes “master”. It’s not like “master” was the only option before

[thro949494i2]

I do not care about github, they can rename their domain to "smarthub.com", and force all users to migrate!

I do care if someone tries to push this stuff onto me. Changes in Git defaults would break 20 years of compatibility! It is bloody important in Linux development!

And I find it very moronic, that someone who writes "git" on every second line, complains "master" was not renamed.

[penguin_booze]

You've no idea how much real social change has been brought about, when Git changed its default branch from master to main. Pardon me, I'm tearing up right now.