RES: Can git change?

["Patricia B. C." <pati.camsky@gmail.com>]

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@gmail.com> 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.