Originally posted by unis_torvalds
View Post
Cloning a repo does creates an identical copy of the whole repo, not only the branch that happens to be named "master". I don't see why it would be a descriptive name. But on the other hand I don't personally care much. It is a good feature in git that the the name of the initial branch can soon be chosen instead of being hardcoded. What people choose to name the initial branch in their project is up to them. Those that like to keep the name "master" may continue to do so, even if the project that the git repo is cloned from would change the name to "main" or anything else. Much fuss about nothing.
Comment