I can’t really tell what the author’s point is. I was a bit disappointed that git didn’t end up taking my suggestion: either getting rid of the default name en

I can’t really tell what the author’s point is. I was a bit disappointed that git didn’t end up taking my suggestion: either getting rid of the default name entirely or making it something obviously useless like “unnamed”. The logic is that neither “master” nor “main” is actually a good name. In the git model, the default branch is a local concept, and it becomes a public property of a fork in most cases when one pushes. If I clone an upstream project, git used to make me a local branch called “master,” which made no sense — my clone isn’t the master copy [0] of anything. But it’s also not the “main” branch of anything other than my local fork. So why does it need a default name that implies any particular usage at all? [0] In the sense of an audio master, for example. I’m not sure of the exact etymology here, but I’m not convinced that this usage traces back to master/slave. But this branch is, of course, also not in charge of anything, nor does it have anything resembling a slave.