• Deebster@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      On the plus side, forcing people to support alternative branch names surely has led to better software support for a core Git feature.

    • lugal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      You sound like a slave owner, ngl

      I am not pro slavery but I will not free my chattel slaves. People just break with this tradition for extremely dubious reasons.

      Listen to yourself!

        • lugal@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Why do I keep getting this comment? Maybe I should call myself Poe in the future

          • Deebster@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            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).

            • lugal@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              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

    • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      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?

      • fl42v@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        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 🤷

          • fl42v@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            I mean smth like git symbolic-ref refs/heads/master refs/heads/main. Not sure if it’s a bad practice or smth, tho

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          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 ".

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

    • fl42v@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      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?