So creating a new repo on GitHub, you get a set of getting started steps. They changed the default branchname to “main” from “master” due to its connotations with slavery.

When I create a new repo now, the initial getting started steps recommend creating a branch named “master” as opposed to “main” as it was a while ago.

It’s especially weird since the line git branch -M master is completely unnecessary, since git init still sets you up with a “master” branch.

Disclaimer: I have a bunch of private repos, and my default branchnames are pretty much all “master”.

Is this a recent change?

Edit: Mystery solved, my default branchname is “master”. Thanks bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone !

  • astrsk@fedia.io
    21·
    9 hours ago

    Again, you’re conflating your own stubbornness with correctness and that just ain’t how it goes. Branch names are frivolous. So much so that changing the strategy or retargeting a branch one time shouldn’t be such a nightmare for your pipelines that you have to pretend like you’re the big dick on campus spouting accomplishments when someone mildly suggests there’s a mistake in your thinking. Look inward if you’re so upset by this that you have to make up irrelevant insults in a vague attempt to protect your own ego, then go fix your pipelines to make it easier to do for the next person after you’re gone.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      6 hours ago

      I’m not confused but you seem to be. you were the one coming out swinging.

      The only statement in your ridiculous rant that has any validity is that of your legacy pipeline configurations.

      that was you, yes? you seemed mad. some advice, don’t go pissing on people if you don’t want to get pissed on.

      if branch names are frivolous then why change them at all? why not keep it as master if it doesn’t matter? you seem to be conflating two conflicting streams of thought, are you ok?

      I’ll show the math from another comment I posted just to show the true cost of a “simple change”.

      if it takes me an average of 60 minutes to update each of my 73 repos, rules, and pipelines, and accounting for 25% more time in post pipeline issues; a “simple branch rename change” would cost me an estimated 92 hours of effort. just over 11 days of work.

      btw, that’s dedicated work. no other projects get done in those hours.

      then we have blowback. things like, updating documentation, training the rest of the team on using main over master, correctly attributing PRs to main over master, updating local scripts that may be referencing master, updating local repos that have master set as origin, etc…

      how many hours will a company allot for tech debt? in theory, 10% of the sprint. in practice, 1%.

      so now because of a “simple branch rename” we’ve reduced output, delayed delivery, increased error rates, increased confusion, increased stress. all for what?

      a frivolous name of a branch, was it?

      I think I’ll keep master around. you want to lose your job because you want to waste your time, go for it!