From: Jerome Kasper Subject: Re: Defaulting primary branch name to "main" To: Tracey Emery , gameoftrees@openbsd.org Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 04:17:38 +0100 Le 02/11/2019 à 02:57, Tracey Emery a écrit : > On November 1, 2019 6:26:44 PM MDT, Jerome Kasper > 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 Hehe i did not intended to play on words but said like that it's funny :p This weekend I will work towards gotweb css. Regards, Jerome