• fl42v@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 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 🤷

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 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
          3
          ·
          9 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

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 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 ".