It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • femtech@midwest.social
    14·
    4 months ago

    The default has been main for awhile.

    This is the case in our current version of git (git version 2.28. 0). As of October 1, 2020, any new repository you create on GitHub.com will use main as the default branch.

    March 2021 for gitlab

        • Saik0AEnglish
          2·
          4 months ago

          can you point where ANYTHING is recommended at all there?

          Cause it simply says that you can change the name. But “master” is the default. That doesn’t sound like a “recommendation” at all. But just making people aware since some repositories try to force things like “Main”. Almost like the repo you’re using might be enforcing shit that Git in of itself doesn’t give a shit about.

          • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
            12·
            4 months ago

            which will suppress this warning

            “I’m going to be annoying you until you do something about it” It is recommending that you take some sort of action, that choice is up to you as the user. In fact, the older way of disabling the warning was called advice.defaultBranchName

            AFAIK git is still Linus Trovalds’ project and one thing he is known for is “you dont fuckin break user space”. That is acknowledged in the pull request https://github.com/git/git/pull/921

            “will minimize disruption for Git’s users and will include appropriate deprecation periods”.

            Linus is also a fuck-your-feelings kind of guy so deprecation_period == linus_date_of_death. No, I’m not implying Linus is racist/bigot, just that he feels that strongly about breaking user experience.

            Git in of itself doesn’t give a shit about.

            You’re right…and that’s why its unbelievable to me how some people are still (it has been nearly 4 years since that PR above) resistant to change this one little thing. This is just the initial branch that we’re talking about here. Git doesn’t care if you:

            ﬌ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/xxxxxx/tmp/.git/

﬌ touch foo && git add foo && git commit -am "foo"
[main (root-commit) 9c74dd1] foo
 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 foo

﬌ git branch -a            
* main

﬌ git checkout -b bar
Switched to a new branch 'bar'

﬌ git branch -d main
Deleted branch main (was 9c74dd1).

﬌ git branch -a
* bar

﬌ git log      
commit 9c74dd18d493fec727e6ce9e4ba71ed356dd970d (HEAD -> bar)
Author: Butters
Date:   Thu Aug 22 00:14:44 2024 -0400

    foo
            • Saik0AEnglish
              21·
              4 months ago

              “I’m going to be annoying you until you do something about it”

              You call that annoying? Annoying would be not functioning at all unless you choose an choice… or even worse. Go the Github route and specifically force you to use anything other than master.

              Git doesn’t care if you:

              Right… So why are you attributing Github = Git… When It’s clear that’s not the case.

      • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
        13·
        4 months ago

        No shit? Let me guess; you’re still using git like Linus intended it to be, decentralized, by emailing each other tar.gz’s

        • Saik0AEnglish
          3·
          4 months ago

          No. I’m just not willing to attribute a COMPANY as the sole owner/stakeholder in a protocol that honestly has very little to do with them.

          Just because Github does something, doesn’t mean that they represent git.

          • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
            11·
            4 months ago

            I just used the most popular/known example. Personally I haven’t liked GitHub since Micro$oft bought them. I’m ol’ school, 25 years in the biz so M$ really really leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth.

            I’ll answer your other question in the other thread.