On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 17:33:15 +0200, Ján Tomko wrote: We should do this only if it's possible to rename it in such a way that keeps old checkouts working. I don't want to fix all clones I have around and I don't want to fix my muscle memory.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 05:55:30PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: At the core git level it is possible to configure aliases between refs, so that someone requesting the "master" ref will get the "main" ref instead. This cna be done both client and server side, though obviously we'd really want it server side. A while back I did find a bug against gitlab tracking support for this, but I'm failing to find it again now, so unclear what the status of rename support is in gitlab. We'd want to confirm they can do this transparent back compat, just as github is planning. In terms of choice of name, I'm in favour of renaming the master branch, provided our newly chosen name is commonly accepted. Out of all the suggestions I've seen put forward, it looks like "main" is likely to become the defacto standard, especially since that is what github have chosen. IOW, I'm in favour of renaming master, likely to "main" assuming that continues to grow as the new defacto standard, but we should validate that gitlab has back compat which may need a little more wait. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|