8 ms·

Either (1) Default name doesn't have inherent value; therefore, changing the default isn't a big deal (low downside), even if the upside is low (2) "master" i

Either (1) Default name doesn't have inherent value; therefore, changing the default isn't a big deal (low downside), even if the upside is low (2) "master" is for some reason a better name than "main" I never see the people complaining about this stuff spelling out a reason why it's a bad idea to change (2), and am forced to conclude that we are in scenario (1). It seems to me that opinion is much more divided on the amount of upside in changing the name. But if the downside is virtually non-existent, who cares? If this is important to some people, shouldn't we just listen to them, and move on?

depr 6y ago
There is a downside which is all aliases and snippets which assume `master` and no longer work (or work across repositories).
- detaro 6y ago
  Assuming a repo has not changed a default is kinda broken either way, so if this leads to more fixed software... (had quite a few annoying moments with repos that didn't use master as the main branch for whatever reason (e.g. having "develop" and release-specific branches)) and tools that insisted that had to be what I wanted)
- truculent 6y ago
  At the risk of being too dismissive - that sounds like incipient tech debt coming due, rather than a new problem entirely (yes, the line between those things is blurred)
- mjw1007 6y ago
  Web links can break too. A URL that could previously be used to retrieve the most recent version of a document may no longer do so. I've already read one bug report where two people were talking at cross-purposes for a considerable time because one of them was reading a stale version of a proposed standard for this reason. It's hardly the largest cause of «Cool URIs don't change»[1] violations out there, but it's enough to cause some real trouble. [1] https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
egwor 6y ago
We have auto merges setup vs master within bitbucket. I've asked our support team to raise it with them and get it addressed. Thats the only reason we've not changed it. We don't develop off master anymore anyway, so it is a bit of a moot point from anyone using the repo. The main annoyance is that when you clone a repo it always comes from master so you have to tell people.
IshKebab 6y ago
I don't know why you've missed the obvious: (3) "master" is a bit worse than "main" but changing it now is annoying. It's like how electrons are negative or an inch isn't exactly 25mm or Pi is half of full turn instead of just a full turn, etc. They all could have defined better but changing them now would be more trouble than it's worth. > the downside is virtually non-existent, who cares? Because a) it isn't virtually non-existent. It means you have to configure another thing on all systems you use git on, it means pretty much all existing tutorials are now wrong, and it means all scripts that assume `master` (a pretty reasonable assumption!) are now broken. And b) it's the principle of the thing! People don't want SJWs to win the argument.

depr 6y ago

There is a downside which is all aliases and snippets which assume `master` and no longer work (or work across repositories).

detaro 6y ago
Assuming a repo has not changed a default is kinda broken either way, so if this leads to more fixed software... (had quite a few annoying moments with repos that didn't use master as the main branch for whatever reason (e.g. having "develop" and release-specific branches)) and tools that insisted that had to be what I wanted)
truculent 6y ago
At the risk of being too dismissive - that sounds like incipient tech debt coming due, rather than a new problem entirely (yes, the line between those things is blurred)
mjw1007 6y ago
Web links can break too. A URL that could previously be used to retrieve the most recent version of a document may no longer do so. I've already read one bug report where two people were talking at cross-purposes for a considerable time because one of them was reading a stale version of a proposed standard for this reason. It's hardly the largest cause of «Cool URIs don't change»[1] violations out there, but it's enough to cause some real trouble. [1] https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

egwor 6y ago

We have auto merges setup vs master within bitbucket. I've asked our support team to raise it with them and get it addressed. Thats the only reason we've not changed it. We don't develop off master anymore anyway, so it is a bit of a moot point from anyone using the repo. The main annoyance is that when you clone a repo it always comes from master so you have to tell people.

IshKebab 6y ago

I don't know why you've missed the obvious: (3) "master" is a bit worse than "main" but changing it now is annoying. It's like how electrons are negative or an inch isn't exactly 25mm or Pi is half of full turn instead of just a full turn, etc. They all could have defined better but changing them now would be more trouble than it's worth. > the downside is virtually non-existent, who cares? Because a) it isn't virtually non-existent. It means you have to configure another thing on all systems you use git on, it means pretty much all existing tutorials are now wrong, and it means all scripts that assume `master` (a pretty reasonable assumption!) are now broken. And b) it's the principle of the thing! People don't want SJWs to win the argument.