Personally I don't see the advantage of switching the default branch name to "main", and doing so would break many people's scripts and automation tooling.

Not a formal objection or attempt to veto the proposal though, just my perspective.

In T16013#284327, @ngraham wrote:

switching the default branch name to "main"

"Default" as in?

Once some projects start to have Qt5 and Qt6 only branches, what is the "default"? And not all projects will switch to Qt6/KF6 at the same time. So there has to be some naming pattern anyway. Because otherwise in case that some "master" branches require Qt5/KF5, while others require Qt6/KF6 only (because they dropped or never had Qt5 support), things will not blend. And "master" has no related meaning then.

When KDE projects turned to Qt5/KF5 that development branch was named "frameworks" (IIRC). Now it could be "main" and then directly become the new leading development branch.

I dont know if have any vote right but if i had my vote goes to "master"

In T16013#284330, @usta wrote:

I dont know if have any vote right but if i had my vote goes to "master"

Please for now stick to arguments, ideas, etc. Voting/decisions can be done afterwards.

I'd suggest to separate KF6 branching a possible default branch renaming.

The assumption for KF6 branching so far was that the KF5 based version gets branched off using the corresponding stable branch naming scheme (which only Frameworks doesn't have, so there we still need to determine a branch name), and the default branch ("master") becomes KF6-based. Yes, this means that "master" can have different meanings depending on the repository, but that isn't new, tooling in many places can handle that already (we just recently removed the metadata for that from the 4->5 transition).

Renaming the default branch has implications beyond that I think, and thus would further complicate the already likely initially messy KF6 branching.