From: Tracey Emery <tracey@traceyemery.net>
Subject: Re: Defaulting primary branch name to "main"
To: gameoftrees@openbsd.org, Jerome Kasper <neon.king.fr@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 19:57:15 -0600

On November 1, 2019 6:26:44 PM MDT, Jerome Kasper <neon.king.fr@gmail.com> wrote:
>Le 01/11/2019 à 21:47, Tracey Emery a écrit :
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:02:49PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 01:24:01PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
>>>> OpenBSD cvs works on the "MAIN" branch by default. This diff moves
>got
>>>> to using "main" by default rather than "master". As a side benefit,
>it
>>>> also avoids using the potentially loaded term "master".
>>> I am fine with this change. Apart from the negative connotations of
>>> the terminology, promoting the idea that branch names are always
>chosen
>>> by convention is good. Having a different default branch name than
>Git
>>> helps to spread the idea that branch names aren't necessarily the
>same
>>> everywhere.
>>>
>> Is this going to require a new got branch rename function? It's going
>to
>> get confusing to go between got generated trees and git generated
>trees
>> when managing both with got. I don't know. Maybe it doesn't matter
>and
>> after time, everyone will get used to the change.
>I do agree with Tracey , I am also wondering if this is not going to 
>create some confusion
>just to match cvs behaviour for the fun of "being different" (no
>offense 
>intended)
>Do we need to create volountary mismatches with usual git behaviour? It
>
>would create
>harder sync with usual various git repositories,because it would 
>probably mean overhead
>in other developpement cases.
>>>> I'm having trouble with the regression test
>test_import_requires_new_branch.
>>>> I'm not seeing why it fails. I did verify it doesn't fail before my
>changes
>>>> though. Maybe someone can point out what I broke.
>>> The test assumes that the repository created by the test_init()
>function
>>> contains a 'master' branch which will collide with the default
>'master'
>>> branch which is used by got import without your patch.
>>> You can either modify the test to pass '-b master' to 'got import',
>>> or add a 'main' branch in the Git repository at the beginning of the
>test,
>>> or perhaps even modify test_init() to create a 'main' branch instead
>of
>>> 'master' in all tests (which might cause additional test fallout).
>>>
>>> Regarding the man page changes:
>>>
>>>> -Fetch new upstream commits into the local repository's master
>branch.
>>>> +Fetch new upstream commits into the local repository's main
>branch.
>>>>   This step currently requires
>>>>   .Xr git 1 :
>>>>   .Pp
>>>>   .Dl $ cd /var/git/src.git
>>>> -.Dl $ git fetch origin master:master
>>>> +.Dl $ git fetch origin main:main
>> This is what I mean. I've already trained myself repeatedly with the
>> master:master option. I suppose, it won't matter once gotd is done. I
>> like the change, but it's going to take a lot of brain to adapt! :D
>Indeed :)
>>> Assuming that people use these instructions verbatim when trying to
>work
>>> against the openbsd src.git repo from github, this command will now
>fail.
>Hence my previous comment.
>>> Should we adjust all examples, or just some of them?
>>> Should the examples just keep using 'master' throughout?
>>> I am not sure.
>>>
>>>>   Before outgoing changes on the local
>>>> -.Dq master
>>>> +.Dq main
>>>> branch can be pushed to the remote repository, the local
>>>> -.Dq master
>>>> +.Dq main
>>>>   branch must be rebased onto the
>>>> -.Dq origin/master
>>>> +.Dq origin/main
>>>>   branch:
>>>>   .Pp
>>>> -.Dl $ got update -b origin/master
>>>> -.Dl $ got rebase master
>>>> +.Dl $ got update -b origin/main
>>>> +.Dl $ got rebase main
>>> Same here.
>Stefan, you're GoT father, choice belongs to you :)
>
>Kind regards,
>Jerome

Ok, I'm using Gotfather from now on!!!
-- 
Tracey Emery