this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
355 points (91.2% liked)
Programmer Humor
32380 readers
1402 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 ๐คทWe'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 ".