3 ms·

I think most people don't even remotely care about master vs. main, but it definitely gives me pause when someone is so bothered by another persons choice not t

I think most people don't even remotely care about master vs. main, but it definitely gives me pause when someone is so bothered by another persons choice not to use master.

IshKebab 3y ago
I care, because it introduced a ton of unnecessary pain into my workflow. Yes really. I now have a mix of repos using `master` and `main`, and I have to remember which one to use. One repo uses `master` but a subtree uses `main`. If you make a mistake and checkout `main` you end up clobbering your whole working tree with the subtree. I also have tooling that used to happily assume `master`, which worked fine 99% of the time. Now it works 50% of the time, and even worse the name of the main branch is just a convention, so you can't even read a setting to see which one to use. I don't care about the specific name. `main` would definitely have made more sense from the start (classic terrible Git naming). But I do care about pointlessly changing it and breaking everything.
- athorax 3y ago
  I think the fact that so many tools were setup to assume `master` and have no way to configure it differently was the real problem, and as annoying as it was to have GH switch to `main` it did force a lot of tools to be updated to make that configurable. Whether you use main, master, trunk, development, or anything else, the fact is the name is arbitrary and treating it any other way was incorrect.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    It wasn't a problem when everyone used `master`!!
- chronial 3y ago
  > One repo uses `master` but a subtree uses `main`. If you make a mistake and checkout `main` you end up clobbering your whole working tree with the subtree. If you replace checkout with switch/restore, that foot gun goes away.
- JelteF 3y ago
  You can put this in your .gitconfig and do 'git checkout-default' to always checkout the default branch of the repo you're in, no matter what it's called: [alias] checkout-default = "!git checkout $(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref origin/HEAD | sed 's@^origin/@@')"
  - ckolkey 3y ago
    This assumes there's a remote set up called "origin" - also an arbitrary name ;)
    - JelteF 3y ago
      Luckily that's something that you control client side so you can simply be consistent about that yourself.
elevatedastalt 3y ago
This is ironic because this whole thing started _with_ people getting very bothered by the choice of the term master.

I think most people don't even remotely care about master vs. main, but it definitely gives me pause when someone is so bothered by another persons choice not to use master.

IshKebab 3y ago

I care, because it introduced a ton of unnecessary pain into my workflow. Yes really. I now have a mix of repos using `master` and `main`, and I have to remember which one to use. One repo uses `master` but a subtree uses `main`. If you make a mistake and checkout `main` you end up clobbering your whole working tree with the subtree. I also have tooling that used to happily assume `master`, which worked fine 99% of the time. Now it works 50% of the time, and even worse the name of the main branch is just a convention, so you can't even read a setting to see which one to use. I don't care about the specific name. `main` would definitely have made more sense from the start (classic terrible Git naming). But I do care about pointlessly changing it and breaking everything.

athorax 3y ago
I think the fact that so many tools were setup to assume `master` and have no way to configure it differently was the real problem, and as annoying as it was to have GH switch to `main` it did force a lot of tools to be updated to make that configurable. Whether you use main, master, trunk, development, or anything else, the fact is the name is arbitrary and treating it any other way was incorrect.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  It wasn't a problem when everyone used `master`!!
chronial 3y ago
> One repo uses `master` but a subtree uses `main`. If you make a mistake and checkout `main` you end up clobbering your whole working tree with the subtree. If you replace checkout with switch/restore, that foot gun goes away.
JelteF 3y ago
You can put this in your .gitconfig and do 'git checkout-default' to always checkout the default branch of the repo you're in, no matter what it's called: [alias] checkout-default = "!git checkout $(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref origin/HEAD | sed 's@^origin/@@')"
- ckolkey 3y ago
  This assumes there's a remote set up called "origin" - also an arbitrary name ;)
  - JelteF 3y ago
    Luckily that's something that you control client side so you can simply be consistent about that yourself.

elevatedastalt 3y ago

This is ironic because this whole thing started _with_ people getting very bothered by the choice of the term master.