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 🤷
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).
For a while, yes, you had to. Every new repo would be main while old ones remained master. Tools that default to a specific branch aside now you had to remember and check which branch you are merging into every time.
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 ".
That’s like forcing people to have different color shoe laces and calling it good practice. In reality it changed nothing but forced a lot of people to work on solving issues with their scripts and automation tools for the sake of change instead of spending that time on writing actual code and fixing bugs.
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?
This, sooo much this! People don’t realize that this change created a lot of unnecessary work to a lot of developers for no other reason than PR or to act smug about it. They solved slavery problem by renaming master to main equally well as they solved homophobia and transphobia by allowing people to specify pronouns on their profiles. Who the hell cares if you identify as tree sap. However many do care if your code sucks or doesn’t follow coding style.
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
It was never about the name itself, but about breaking a convention for extremely dubious reasons.
deleted by creator
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 🤷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.
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, thoFor a while, yes, you had to. Every new repo would be
mainwhile old ones remainedmaster. Tools that default to a specific branch aside now you had to remember and check which branch you are merging into every time.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 ".
On the plus side, forcing people to support alternative branch names surely has led to better software support for a core Git feature.
That’s like forcing people to have different color shoe laces and calling it good practice. In reality it changed nothing but forced a lot of people to work on solving issues with their scripts and automation tools for the sake of change instead of spending that time on writing actual code and fixing bugs.
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?
This, sooo much this! People don’t realize that this change created a lot of unnecessary work to a lot of developers for no other reason than PR or to act smug about it. They solved slavery problem by renaming
mastertomainequally well as they solved homophobia and transphobia by allowing people to specify pronouns on their profiles. Who the hell cares if you identify as tree sap. However many do care if your code sucks or doesn’t follow coding style.People like you are why JavaScript exists
You sound like a slave owner, ngl
Listen to yourself!
Edit: I was thinking about putting “/s” at the end but thought it was obvious enough. I was wrong
This is the epitome of Poe’s law
Why do I keep getting this comment? Maybe I should call myself Poe in the future
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
No, you should call yourself poe in the past so you can collect royalties on yourself.
I guess I once again forgot the “/s”. I’m not going to call me “Poe” at any point of time /s