It wasn't the worst mistake that Bitkeeper made in its history. Bitkeeper is going to be an interesting historical footnote for the mistake of dropping the Linu

It wasn't the worst mistake that Bitkeeper made in its history. Bitkeeper is going to be an interesting historical footnote for the mistake of dropping the Linux kernel and subsequently prompting the creation of both Mercurial and git. > Maybe we should be wrapping this up and looking for a new problem to fix? I feel that we mostly are. It's barely an aside in these release notes and most of the comments are just people still antagonistic to the change, but at this point all the major git repo hosts have made the change for when you init new repos and even new base installs of git itself when you go to git init either have the new default or prompt you (depending on which distro you install, I believe). Like I said, "main" isn't the "perfect choice" but for most of the git tools builders (the major hosts, and git itself) it's good enough and has wide enough support it's "the winner" and has been for several months now. But the tools themselves are happy to let you still use the old default if you don't feel like migrating or personal choices if you don't like the new default. It's all "good enough", and not trying to be perfect. Renaming branches is mostly just a folder rename, so what harm does it do to just rename the branches? (If it causes some small feeling of harm reduction/justice for those that do object to the old default name, isn't that reason enough?) I'm going to quietly rename branches when I see fit. I'm also not going to force anyone to rename branches if they don't feel like it. That seems to be where most of the tools have landed, no one's forcing the name change, many are suggesting it, but as an action itself it's barely a footnote in Release Notes. At this point it seems increasingly silly to relitigate why we should stick with the old default instead of just shrugging and moving on to the new one. I don't think your rant was specifically designed to relitigate that, which is why I replied to yours specifically with added context that I thought you might find useful, but some of the other comments in the thread are more questionably about that. The decision has been made: by major corporations listening to their Diversity and Inclusion boards, by the git mailing list itself and even including the developer that chose "master" in the first place without any malicious intent behind it and in general more because of "momentum" than intent, etc. The remaining, recurring complaints seem more about political parties and "anti-virtue signaling" as much as anything technical. (Those same complaints suggest that renaming branches/folders is just "virtue signaling", so complaining about "virtue" as a goal seems it can only be "anti-virtue", right? Our language has gotten so corrupted by social media.)