I am unclear what is the value added by this link, other than to rekindle some inflammatory discussion that was had at length already?
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).
> I am unclear what is the value added by this link, other than to rekindle some inflammatory discussion that was had at length already?
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.
Removing 'slave' from the vocabulary makes more sense than removing 'master', master is a term that predates its usage in slavery contexts.
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.
Words falling out of use and words being taken out of use are two altogether different beasts. I suspect you might be commenting disingenuously, though.
give it a year or two before professional offended people think it's outrageous that there's still projects using master branch, then give it a week before github start giving notice to those projects.
> Did you see that some artist is close to be canceled for saying the most boring stuff?
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.
> 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.
This isn't about people having the option just happening to have an option to pick whatever name they want - this is in the context of a massive backlash against the specific use of a specific word, then people being given the option to make that choice under scrutiny or at least with extreme care and taking into account the risk of backlash should they "choose wrong."
> You're free to name a Github branch "master" if you want.
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.
I don't like being reminded about racism, murders, looting and shooting in some irrelevant american town every time my build fails because of this inflammatory change by github.
Language evolves via gradual changes in common usage, not by decree from a fringe minority that captured some institution. Anyone who says that this nonsense is an example of normal process of language evolution is a gaslighting liar.
Have you considered the possibility that being all worked up over the default name Github assigns to the first branch in a new repository puts you in "fringe minority" status?
Again, have you actually taken a look at that article?
> “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...
just watch CNN, CNBC, etc, and tell me that canceling people is not a subject VERY frequently. Whoopi Goldberg is one of the last matter (not master), it's not about some source you don't like, don't be retarded (oops banned word)
Socrates got executed for his speech. "Cancel culture" has been with us since we invented social groups. Monkeys ostracise members of the group on a regular basis. Why do you think "so and so got in trouble for saying something offensive" is a new phenomenon?
I'm very sorry if you can't see how this is getting out of proportion and more and more irrational, it just means you're lacking basic sense of observation and I recommend you to work on that.
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.
> it just means you're lacking basic sense of observation and I recommend you to work on that
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!
> not by decree from a fringe minority that captured some institution.
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.
i think it's even funnier, that production systems do not use their own copy/fork of such repositories.. and it QUITE shows, how we parasitize from each other.
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.
yocto is also an embedded system, where you should be taking care of these things tidily, because your target devices are not always trivially updatable and often have longer lifetime cycles than revs of normal software
Yeah, ive had issues with repos on github having master and new ones having main. Github api seems to force the default branch to main (on new repos) making fixing this harder as well.
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.
I'd expect you'd still create an empty repo (same as in the web UI) and then push the branches you want to push. You don't configure a branch name in the web ui as well.
But that's why I'm asking where OP found that and not just saying they're wrong.
As @zerocrates mentioned, it's about the github auto commit feature when creating a new repo. This makes bootstrapping using terraform more complicated.
> Github api seems to force the default branch to main (on new repos)
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.
If you were assuming ‘master’ you were probably already making a bad assumption. I’ve seen projects that use ‘dev’, ‘develop’, etc, etc. I’d consider it a good thing to make your scripts less fragile.
A proposed answer, probably by someone from here as it was just commented:
> 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 think the more interesting thing is that old, most central branch (trying to avoid saying main) has been removed instead kept and locked from updates.
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).