this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2021
36 points (86.0% liked)
Open Source
32699 readers
1380 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
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
There is also a problem with people who make a big drama when projects dare to use a different name for their main branch.
Believe me; I do not give a shit what others use. After all, I (like others) know other RCS systems outside Git, and I don't find it a problem that e.g. hg uses HEAD (and has been using HEAD since its early days, before the "master is racist" nonsense), svn uses trunk (I think, admittedly I'm not a fan of centralized RCS systems).
I have a problem when others want to bully me into changing it when I don't want to.
Edit: my only problem with this state is that there is no standard. I have no problem with hg's choice, because EVERY hg repo's master branch is called HEAD. But now with git, there two gazillion possibilites, and no standard. Some have moved to trunk, main, I've seem some people use "actual", and some people use "master", of course. So I do find it annoying that people had to ruin a standard that worked for over a decade.
Did we, though? You are the one who brought up the whole "master"/"main" debate, it was not part of my argument. And in any case, nothing in the code prevents you from naming your branch "master", only the default setting was changed.
Yes there is. Your git client will automatically checkout the default branch from the remote. You can even programmatically detect the current branch after cloning so what's your problem?
Yes, now you have to get out of your way to detect the name of the master branch. You used to be able to assume that it was "master", obviously much less code required
That's not true. Even when "master" was the default, i had to "get out of my way" to support many projects who did not use "master" as default branch name. Whatever setting i personally use on my repos, i can hardcode in my scripts. When dealing with other people's repositories, it's an entirely different story.