So creating a new repo on GitHub, you get a set of getting started steps. They changed the default branchname to “main” from “master” due to its connotations with slavery.
When I create a new repo now, the initial getting started steps recommend creating a branch named “master” as opposed to “main” as it was a while ago.
It’s especially weird since the line git branch -M master is completely unnecessary, since git init still sets you up with a “master” branch.
Disclaimer: I have a bunch of private repos, and my default branchnames are pretty much all “master”.
Is this a recent change?
Edit: Mystery solved, my default branchname is “master”. Thanks [email protected] !
I’m not confused but you seem to be. you were the one coming out swinging.
that was you, yes? you seemed mad. some advice, don’t go pissing on people if you don’t want to get pissed on.
if branch names are frivolous then why change them at all? why not keep it as master if it doesn’t matter? you seem to be conflating two conflicting streams of thought, are you ok?
I’ll show the math from another comment I posted just to show the true cost of a “simple change”.
btw, that’s dedicated work. no other projects get done in those hours.
then we have blowback. things like, updating documentation, training the rest of the team on using main over master, correctly attributing PRs to main over master, updating local scripts that may be referencing master, updating local repos that have master set as origin, etc…
how many hours will a company allot for tech debt? in theory, 10% of the sprint. in practice, 1%.
so now because of a “simple branch rename” we’ve reduced output, delayed delivery, increased error rates, increased confusion, increased stress. all for what?
a frivolous name of a branch, was it?
I think I’ll keep master around. you want to lose your job because you want to waste your time, go for it!