Re: [PATCH 00/28] Use main as default branch name

Philip Oakley [off-list ref] writes:

On 19/11/2020 11:10, Sergey Organov wrote:

quoted

Philip Oakley [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 19/11/2020 01:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Philip Oakley [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

An alternative in the other direction is to go with the 'not currently
on any branch' (detached at nowhere) but then require users to
deliberately create their first branch with their chosen name. This
moves the 'backward incompatibility' to a different place, which may be
easier to manage.

As has already been mentioned by Peff, I do not think that is a
workable alternative, especially given that people are generally
afraid of and easily get confused by being on a detached HEAD.

Yes, our use of the technical phrase 'detached HEAD' is confusing,
compared with the more pleasant 'not on any branch', or 'not at a branch
tip'. Such is the curse of knowledge.

To me "not on a branch [tip]" is also confusing, as in fact you are, as
is easily seen after you perform a few commits, and now HEAD points
directly to the tip of the branch (that has no other references).

I wonder why Git didn't rather adopt "unnamed branch" or "nameless
branch" to describe this mode of operation?

Given the ephemeral nature of branches they sound like good
suggestion.

Sure, so to me they sound even more natural in Git context than in any
other VCS I'm aware of.

However I suspect "history" to be the "why" of the current 'detached
head' usage.
Maybe it's a side reference to Nearly Headless Nick or other discussions
of the time (aka lost in history)?

I do have a few commits at which HEAD has been detached, not once at
some. Bloody they are.

-- Sergey