• seth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s git push origin branch and then merge after submitting a pull request from branch to main after a successful lint check, build, deployment, and testing in a non-production environment, and PR approval. What kind of wild west operation allows pushing directly to main?

    • RustyNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Fuck those that use main. If you’re working on a library fork that has main and a project that has master you’re bound to invert the two.

      “What do you mean I can’t checkout main? Oh right, here it’s master…”

      For once that we had a standard, it had to be ruined.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Fuck those that use master. If you’re working on a library fork that has main and a project that has master you’re bound to invert the two.

        “What do you mean I can’t checkout main? Oh right, here it’s master…”

        For once that we had a standard, it had to be ruined.

        The standard is now main.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The standard is now main.

          Git itself does not use that standard yet, so at least now there are two competing standards.

          I get that there are cultural reasons why the word master was loaded language, but still, it’s not like institutional racism will go away. Meanwhile, the rest of the world which doesn’t struggle with the remnants of slavery has to put up with US weirdness.

          • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Git itself does not use that standard yet, so at least now there are two competing standards.

            Just ran git init in a brand new empty directory, and while it did create a master branch by default, it also printed out a very descriptive message explaining how you can change that branch name, how you can configure git to use something else by default, and other standards that are commonly used.

            Also, there’s nothing saying your local branch name has to match the upstream. That’s the beauty of git - you have the freedom to set it up pretty much however you want locally.

            • maynarkh@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah, that’s what I’m saying, there is no one standard now. The stupid thing is all the problems that causes is mostly because there used to be one, and stuff written assuming master branches are eternal.

              I’ve had a company that had some automation built on git but below GitLab that would not let you delete master branches. When main became a thing, they just started hard protecting those as well by name. It’s because of regulatory, and they are very stingy about it.

              So when I created a few dozen empty deployment repos with main as the default, and then had to change it over to master so that it lined up nicer with the rest of the stuff, I’ve had a few dozen orphaned undeletable empty main branches laying around. A bit frustrating.

              That said, the whole thing is just that. A bit frustrating. If it makes some people feel better about themselves, so be it. I am blessed in life enough to take “a bit frustrating”.