Could we please get back the master-branch on this repository?
github.com
github.com
It shows that the go build tools are especially brittle and making assumptions they should not. And that for some reason people do not maintain a local cache of their dependencies, while having unreasonable expectations of FOSS library maintainers (this library will apparently be archived on the 28th of this month if no new maintainer steps up).
Then don't up-vote it and keep scrolling. That's usually the way when someone sees an uninteresting post. It is strange that you must post about it in the post.
Asking (and explaining the logic of main vs master) would be better UX than forcing a new paradigm into contexts where it's not welcome - all of my corpo repos use master; sneaking main into new repos is not helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaism
https://www.businessinsider.com/best-old-english-words-that-...
Language evolves, and has since it was invented.
Others are free to pick "main". Github's free to pick a default. People are free to infer what they like from your choice.
Over time, we figure out which one we, as a society, prefer.
Did you see that some artist is close to be canceled for saying the most boring stuff? https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1491433294935867397
What you may find harmless and maybe even meaningless change, is actually part of a total insanity that he's not going to stop anywhere.
I see the NY Post is once again running a "here are some random tweets" article of the sort they've been running for years now to fill clickbait space.
Isn't one of the recent hot topic about banning someone for the word he used? There's a "scandal" like that every other day now...
Yes. That's what tabloids have done for hundreds of years. The NY Post has convinced you Adele is being canceled over a couple of mean @mentions on Twitter from random people with minimal following. You've fallen for it, and might consider what else in the culture war you've gotten stirred up about that isn't as big of a deal as a breathless tabloid article would imply.
ok... https://twitter.com/MrsT106/status/1491695608121409538
Having to update a branch name on a couple dependencies a few times doesn't really rise that high on my list of them.
The time me and many other spent finding a solution is not "free", and is not the first time that has happened or will happen.
> Others are free to pick "main". Github's free to pick a default. People are free to infer what they like from your choice.
Until Microsoft and other Big Tech companies decide that they will promote projects and developers who do.Of course they are "free" to do so, but that goes against your argument that people are "free to choose".
> Over time, we figure out which one we, as a society, prefer.
Where did "society" or the git user communities were asked and heard if that was a good idea? The decision came from the bottom up and the discussions that were had were restricted to a few posts (because "we already had that discussion before, flagged/deleted) or were incredibly censored and one-sided with accusations of racism directed at people who were using their real names and work addresses.
> “Please, no, ADELE can’t be a TERF,” a “staunch feminist” performer named Jacob told his thousands of Twitter followers.
> “Who’d have thought Adele was a transphobe and would use her platform to call for the destruction of the trans community. Especially the confused teenagers,” another long-time Twitter user posted.
(They had to go with "long-time" for that second one because they've only got 375 followers.)
"We searched up a handful of mean tweets" isn't journalism or indicative of anything except the fact you can always find some mean tweets about someone, and it's a little hard to say Adele is canceled in an article about her winning Artist of the Year...
And regarding the word "master", do you think a black guy will get offended to get called a masterchief ? a chess master ? no way... It doesn't make any sense. There were hundreds of millions of white slave in history, and still white people don't seem to get concerned by that, because it's not used for "political" matter.
I'm always surprise on HN to see the smartest people falling for the dumbest propaganda.
I will absolutely be willing to take that criticism from someone who hasn't fallen for the NY Post's "Adele is canceled because we found a tweet from someone with 375 followers".
> And regarding the word "master", do you think a black guy will get offended to get called a masterchief ?
If you call your mother "mother", will she be mad? How about "motherfucker"? Compound words change meaning.
Why? CNN and CNBC are viewed by around 1-2 million people during prime time. There are literally Youtubers who do nothing but eat junk food who get more views than CNN [1]. Just because something is a big deal on CNN or Fox News doesn't mean it's actually a big deal.
The fact you give any credence, one way or the other, to what Whoopi Goldberg (???) says is more a reflection of your own values than a reflection of any kind of social collapse or the emergence of some kind of fascist regime. Oh no! An actress on day time television said something her advertisers didn't want her to say and now she's suspended for two weeks! This clearly is in indication of the power Antifa has on the media and our thoughts!
Welcome to France.
They are not a cringe minority. I mean, they are cringe, but not part of any minority, except the self-created ones. Sorry for the wordplay. They a dozen people with no technical skill who tried (and succeeded) into getting some petty power, status, and time on the spotlights by crying "These <insert some extreme word here> FLOSS devs are oppressing me!!", just because FLOSS projects were an easy target (i.e. usually managed by people who are compromising, supportive and that don't like wasting time with non-technical conflict and focus on having a job done).
And we gave up to them, hoping they just go away hunting another easy target (masterworks, MSc degrees, master/apprentices, that master chef TV show, and so), while we pay lip-service to dodge the mob before they come to destroy our projects/jobs/companies/etc.
And, of course, no minority was positively affected by any of this. They are working just like everybody else, because behind a keyboard don't matter which $PERSONAL_CHARACTERISTIC people have, but what they deliver.
GitHub, fuck your name change (mooseyanon.medium.com)
3353 points by leontrolski | 10 months ago | 2084 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26487854
Presumably breakage was anticipated back then?
What does this add?
A collection of tickets such as this one plus some analysis? Could be interesting. But this is just noise.
Edit: To be interesting, that analysis would have to compare with other kinds of breaking changes that happen in software constantly.
The fact that this is the only instance of problems says that the change effectively caused no ongoing problems.
It's not that big of a deal but sure is a hassle.
Jesus, really? I didn't pay much attention to the master nonsense because I figured it would be limited to projects who cared more about social performance than building something useful, but it sounds like it's being forced at the platform-level onto every project.
OTOH, the impact is mitigated for new projects
They're sure suggesting it - their suggested commands to initialize a new repo will create a main branch. But you can just ignore that suggestion?
They are just going along the git default, so yes, a new repo will be on main branch by default.
Here’s the API reference: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/repos#create-an-or...
I don’t see any parameter for setting the default to master instead of main. However it does seem like you can change it after it has been created with a subsequent update call.
But that's why I'm asking where OP found that and not just saying they're wrong.
€: There's also https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/repos#update-a-rep... where you can set the default_branch?
How can you expect a foreign system (which you can clone!) to always adhere to your standards, when there's not even a formal declaration what they will do and which migration standards they will follow.
i mean i can understand that for the garage-hobby-project.. for projects like yocto which are used by companies.. well the companies should pay yocto some money, so they at least can buy storage/whatever at github or another repository place.
From a pure bug perspective this change has literally only downsides
git symbolic-ref refs/heads/master refs/heads/main
> Is it a lot of hassle to fork, make some script (maybe github action?) to auto update your fork, and use git symbolic-ref to make master point to main? Once you have your auto update in place you're basically hands off from there right?
I feel like there’s a satire tag missing.
git config --global init.defaultBranch master
https://archive.softwareheritage.org/api/1/directory/da02f8b...
You can schedule archival of any odd revision, and look it up later either by content checksum or by revision.
Repository default branch