355
submitted 2 years ago by TxzK@lemmy.zip to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] fl42v@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years 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 3 points 2 years 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.

[-] locuester@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago
[-] fl42v@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years 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 1 points 2 years 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.

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de -1 points 2 years 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 ".

this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
355 points (91.2% liked)

Programmer Humor

37347 readers
420 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS