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 bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone !

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyzOPEnglish
      9·
      3 hours ago

      Well, that is embarassing. It’s master.

      I don’t remember setting this, but then again, I don’t remember a lot of things. Thanks!

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      1 hour ago

      is it though?

      I treat the master branch as the master record. it’s the branch all other branches are made from.

      calling it main is overly generic. main to what? the repo? the main feature being worked on? are there multiple mains like in mains voltages?

      master seems far more concise. when you think of it like a stateful record.

      plus all my pipelines are configured to use master. I would have to rewrite 70+ pipelines just to convert to main.

      not worth it.

      • astrsk@fedia.io
        22·
        39 minutes ago

        The only statement in your ridiculous rant that has any validity is that of your legacy pipeline configurations. But pipelines need to be updated and validated semi-regularly and should be generalized to begin with, so it’s not really any good point that your legacy pipelines cannot handle a default branch name change like modern pipelines should.

        Swap main and master in your comment and it reads the exact same with all the same shallow justifications.