Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Default branch names? #125

Closed
erget opened this issue Sep 20, 2021 · 5 comments
Closed

Default branch names? #125

erget opened this issue Sep 20, 2021 · 5 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested or discussion invited

Comments

@erget
Copy link
Member

erget commented Sep 20, 2021

Dear community,

Language is changing, as it is wont to do, and in recent years several major software initiatives have pivoted in order to match the evolution of our society's values. One such area is the default branch name in git, which historically has been "master". The Software Freedom Conservancy released a statement last year detailing why they are encouraging projects to shift from "master" to "main" and lay out some good reasons for it; GitHub has gone the same direction, as have several other git hosters.

I think that this is progress, while realising that updating such names involves a bit of technical work on the part of the repository maintainers, as well as updates to remote references for everybody who's cloned a repository. There is no danger of data loss in doing so, however, so I think that a migration from "master" to "main" is very low-risk.

How is this seen in the wider community? Is it worthwhile to switch the default branch names in the CF repositories to "main"? If there is support for this I would be happy to participate in its implementation in a way that doesn't pull the rug out from people's feet.

Regards,
Daniel

@erget erget added the question Further information is requested or discussion invited label Sep 20, 2021
@MathewBiddle
Copy link

👍

@davidhassell
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @erget, I think that this is indeed worthwhile. Should we go ahead, thanks for offering to help facilitate it.
David

@sethmcg
Copy link

sethmcg commented Sep 20, 2021

My organization has made this change, and I think it's a good idea.

@erget
Copy link
Member Author

erget commented Oct 15, 2021

Hi all, since I've received 10 approvals (counting my own), including members of the Conventions Committee and Governance Panel, I plan on implementing this next week on Friday, 2021-10-22. This is a purely technical change that will affect only the repositories, not the text that they contain, so I'll treat it as a GitHub issue. Let me know if this presents a problem for you. I'm also happy to help people if they have technical issues migrating their cloned repositories.

erget added a commit to cf-convention/cf-convention.github.io that referenced this issue Dec 31, 2021
erget added a commit to cf-convention/cf-convention.github.io that referenced this issue Dec 31, 2021
erget added a commit to cf-convention/cf-conventions that referenced this issue Dec 31, 2021
@erget
Copy link
Member Author

erget commented Dec 31, 2021

Done! PRs have been updated, but your local environment will not have been. I also wouldn't be particularly surprised if some of our automations broke although I had a look and it all looks safe to me.

You should also see an info badge when you reload the page telling you that the default branch has been renamed and giving some guidance on updating your local environment to match the one on the server. Copy-paste the commands and you'll be good to go.

Thanks all for participating in this thread and happy New Year!

@erget erget closed this as completed Dec 31, 2021
erget added a commit to cf-convention/cf-conventions that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2022
erget added a commit to cf-convention/cf-conventions that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested or discussion invited
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants