I find it funny how many ppl complained about it when it came up. Now it is the default on github and other code forges. And now one cares anymore if it is master or main.
Yeah, seems like I’m wrong. I looked up the docs on git-scm.com and it says that the default branch name is “currently master, but this is subject to change in the future”. Maybe GitHub threw me off.
I think on the Fediverse (or just Lemmy?) I’ve seen more people who’d post your comment non-ironically. Or maybe they’re not serious either (but they’d have to be really committed to the bit).
I had a conversation recently where someone said they weren’t serious after several levels of comments that were downvoted into oblivion. I try to make myself understood in the second (or third) level of comments or, as in this case, in an edit
Yes like companies who have thousands of repos with master as the main branch. It really wouldn’t make sense to switch halfway and be working on different repos with different primary branches.
Not the biggest hurdle to overcome but also… Why should you have to?
Do you really have to, tho? One can keep using masters, move them to mains, or even symlink one to another so that everyone is comfortable with whatever they’re used to. Seems like a non-issue to me 🤷
It’s an issue, because many tools default to a certain branch, and people do too. So each build pipeline has to be changed, each dev has to check for each repo he’s working on, whether it’s using main or master, etc, etc.
Just think about what hell would break loose, if Microsoft would be forced to rename C: to something else because someone was reminded of the "C word ".
We’ve ended up with a 50:50 chance of what any repo is doing. All depends on when the repo was created (old ones are all master) and if the creator tried to preserve consistency or not (yes: master, no: took the default of main).
Sb got offended for no reason, then companies decided to get public approval points out of it; nothing new or notable. Seriously, tf is the point of overanalyzing it like there’s nothing better to do?
I find it funny how many ppl complained about it when it came up. Now it is the default on github and other code forges. And now one cares anymore if it is master or main.
Master is still the default branch when you run
git init.Depends on your version of git, I believe.
The latest version from kernel.org still uses master. It’s certainly possible for distro maintainers to change it on the versions they package though.
Yeah, seems like I’m wrong. I looked up the docs on git-scm.com and it says that the default branch name is “currently master, but this is subject to change in the future”. Maybe GitHub threw me off.
It was never about the name itself, but about breaking a convention for extremely dubious reasons.
On the plus side, forcing people to support alternative branch names surely has led to better software support for a core Git feature.
You sound like a slave owner, ngl
Listen to yourself!
This is the epitome of Poe’s law
Why do I keep getting this comment? Maybe I should call myself Poe in the future
No, you should call yourself poe in the past so you can collect royalties on yourself.
I think on the Fediverse (or just Lemmy?) I’ve seen more people who’d post your comment non-ironically. Or maybe they’re not serious either (but they’d have to be really committed to the bit).
I had a conversation recently where someone said they weren’t serious after several levels of comments that were downvoted into oblivion. I try to make myself understood in the second (or third) level of comments or, as in this case, in an edit
Yes like companies who have thousands of repos with master as the main branch. It really wouldn’t make sense to switch halfway and be working on different repos with different primary branches.
Not the biggest hurdle to overcome but also… Why should you have to?
Do you really have to, tho? One can keep using
masters, move them tomains, or even symlink one to another so that everyone is comfortable with whatever they’re used to. Seems like a non-issue to me 🤷Symlink a git tag?
I mean smth like
git symbolic-ref refs/heads/master refs/heads/main. Not sure if it’s a bad practice or smth, thoIt’s an issue, because many tools default to a certain branch, and people do too. So each build pipeline has to be changed, each dev has to check for each repo he’s working on, whether it’s using main or master, etc, etc.
Just think about what hell would break loose, if Microsoft would be forced to rename C: to something else because someone was reminded of the "C word ".
We’ve ended up with a 50:50 chance of what any repo is doing. All depends on when the repo was created (old ones are all master) and if the creator tried to preserve consistency or not (yes: master, no: took the default of main).
It’s annoying and pointless.
People like you are why JavaScript exists
Sb got offended for no reason, then companies decided to get public approval points out of it; nothing new or notable. Seriously, tf is the point of overanalyzing it like there’s nothing better to do?
Because its a non issue to developers.
It was only a hand wringing thing by internet bloggers.