From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2021-01-23 02:29:31
Martin von Zweigbergk [off-list ref] writes:
This is probably quite off topic for the thread, but I'm curious why
you think it was a bad idea to have octopus merges in git.git's
history (there seem to be 37 of them).
Octoupi in our history, at least the older ones, solve no real life
problem; it only gives us "now we have something cool-looking that
other people's version control systems never had", which is of
dubious value.
And their presense makes bisection less efficient than it could be
around them, which is a real downside.
From: Patricia B. C. <hidden> Date: 2021-01-23 12:57:56
Hey, thanks for the replies, guys.
Yes, as Junio said, my intention was to understand a bit about what
you were doing, so thank you for the explanation!
The idea isn't really to imitate what you are doing, but just to use
it as a benchmark to show that changing the name of the branch might
not seem like an important thing, but it is a global movement that is
being adopted by many renowned developers.
Quoting one of the comments on the discussion topic I raised:
"It's only the default name for repositories created inside GitHub.
Since our students only create their repositories locally on their
computers with Git, I don't see how GitHub's decision will affect
them. If Git decides to change over from master to main, and there is
an industry-wide push to adopt this change (which doesn't seem very
likely to me), then I might agree with you"
So, I just wanted to show that guy that this is an industry-wide push :)
Best regards,
Patricia Camiansky.
De: Junio C Hamano
Enviado:sexta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2021 23:27
Para: Martin von Zweigbergk
Cc:Christian Couder; Patricia B. C.; git
Assunto: Re: Can git change?
Martin von Zweigbergk [off-list ref] writes:
This is probably quite off topic for the thread, but I'm curious why
you think it was a bad idea to have octopus merges in git.git's
history (there seem to be 37 of them).
Octoupi in our history, at least the older ones, solve no real life
problem; it only gives us "now we have something cool-looking that
other people's version control systems never had", which is of
dubious value.
And their presense makes bisection less efficient than it could be
around them, which is a real downside.
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden> Date: 2021-01-25 16:30:57
Hi Patricia,
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021, Patricia B. C. wrote:
Yes, as Junio said, my intention was to understand a bit about what
you were doing, so thank you for the explanation!
The idea isn't really to imitate what you are doing, but just to use
it as a benchmark to show that changing the name of the branch might
not seem like an important thing, but it is a global movement that is
being adopted by many renowned developers.
FWIW Git for Windows switched all of its repositories to use `main` as
default branch name: its git/git fork, the build-extra, MINGW-packages,
MSYS2-packages, git-sdk-32, git-sdk-64, git-for-windows.github.io,
msys2-runtime, busybox-w32 and WinToast repositories:
https://github.com/git-for-windows/
Quoting one of the comments on the discussion topic I raised:
"It's only the default name for repositories created inside GitHub.
Since our students only create their repositories locally on their
computers with Git, I don't see how GitHub's decision will affect
them. If Git decides to change over from master to main, and there is
an industry-wide push to adopt this change (which doesn't seem very
likely to me), then I might agree with you"
Any repository created on GitHub will have that branch name by default.
Likewise on Azure DevOps. I fully expect the other hosters to follow at
some stage, and also for `git init` to change the default in a future
version (I am working toward that goal).
And I have to admit that I am somewhat concerned about your students if
one of their instructors thinks that their education shouldn't prepare
them for more than working locally on their computers. Aren't they at all
interested in preparing the students for life after university? If so,
they will most certainly be affected by GitHub's decision.
So, I just wanted to show that guy that this is an industry-wide push :)
Maybe Git itself is not a good example for that. Bigger projects face
dramatically bigger challenges replacing the default branch name because
of the short term disruption caused by it. Nevertheless, a growing number
of projects have already renamed their default branch, such as Snowpack
(https://github.com/snowpackjs/snowpack) and the react-refresh webpack
plugin (https://github.com/pmmmwh/react-refresh-webpack-plugin) but also
bigger ones such as LLVM (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project).
Ciao,
Johannes
From: Patricia B. C. <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 12:33:43
Hey!
Thank you very much, guys, for the detailed explanation, I will bring
those points to the discussion topic :D
I do agree with you that we should prepare the students for "real
world" projects and not only working locally.
Hopefully, there will be more people who agree with me than people who
want to stick with the old fashioned way :)
Thanks again!
Patricia Camiansky.
Em seg., 25 de jan. de 2021 às 22:58, Junio C Hamano
[off-list ref] escreveu:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
And I have to admit that I am somewhat concerned about your students if
one of their instructors thinks that their education shouldn't prepare
them for more than working locally on their computers. Aren't they at all
interested in preparing the students for life after university? If so,
they will most certainly be affected by GitHub's decision.
GitHub's decision will most affect projects that haven't started
yet, simply because they won't have to incur any "transition" cost
the existing projects may have to consider. And given enough time,
old projects die out and there will be more new projects than the
projects we currently have, hopefully.
Until that happens, they would be affected more by decision by the
projects they interact with, as it is most convenient if your local
name matches the name the upstream uses. And the versions of Git
way before people started talking about 'master' and 'main' have
long been prepared for that, and we've been closing possible gaps in
the recent versions. "git clone" would notice what name the upstream
uses and uses the same name locally.
Even when they work locally, they'll start getting 'main' from their
Git soon, and that would become consistent with the name that their
"upstream" projects are likely to choose due to this "industry wide"
push.
quoted
Any repository created on GitHub will have that branch name by default.
Likewise on Azure DevOps. I fully expect the other hosters to follow at
some stage, and also for `git init` to change the default in a future
version (I am working toward that goal).
...
Maybe Git itself is not a good example for that. Bigger projects face
dramatically bigger challenges replacing the default branch name because
of the short term disruption caused by it. Nevertheless, a growing number
of projects have already renamed their default branch, such as Snowpack
(https://github.com/snowpackjs/snowpack) and the react-refresh webpack
plugin (https://github.com/pmmmwh/react-refresh-webpack-plugin) but also
bigger ones such as LLVM (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project).
Yes, thanks for giving Patricia and likeminded souls more usable
ammunition than just us ;-)
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2021-01-26 20:46:33
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
And I have to admit that I am somewhat concerned about your students if
one of their instructors thinks that their education shouldn't prepare
them for more than working locally on their computers. Aren't they at all
interested in preparing the students for life after university? If so,
they will most certainly be affected by GitHub's decision.
GitHub's decision will most affect projects that haven't started
yet, simply because they won't have to incur any "transition" cost
the existing projects may have to consider. And given enough time,
old projects die out and there will be more new projects than the
projects we currently have, hopefully.
Until that happens, they would be affected more by decision by the
projects they interact with, as it is most convenient if your local
name matches the name the upstream uses. And the versions of Git
way before people started talking about 'master' and 'main' have
long been prepared for that, and we've been closing possible gaps in
the recent versions. "git clone" would notice what name the upstream
uses and uses the same name locally.
Even when they work locally, they'll start getting 'main' from their
Git soon, and that would become consistent with the name that their
"upstream" projects are likely to choose due to this "industry wide"
push.
Any repository created on GitHub will have that branch name by default.
Likewise on Azure DevOps. I fully expect the other hosters to follow at
some stage, and also for `git init` to change the default in a future
version (I am working toward that goal).
...
Maybe Git itself is not a good example for that. Bigger projects face
dramatically bigger challenges replacing the default branch name because
of the short term disruption caused by it. Nevertheless, a growing number
of projects have already renamed their default branch, such as Snowpack
(https://github.com/snowpackjs/snowpack) and the react-refresh webpack
plugin (https://github.com/pmmmwh/react-refresh-webpack-plugin) but also
bigger ones such as LLVM (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project).
Yes, thanks for giving Patricia and likeminded souls more usable
ammunition than just us ;-)
From: Daniel Gruesso <hidden> Date: 2021-03-09 14:55:19
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
Any repository created on GitHub will have that branch name by default.
Likewise on Azure DevOps. I fully expect the other hosters to follow at
some stage, and also for `git init` to change the default in a future
version (I am working toward that goal).
GitLab product person here, we are indeed planning to change this in
our next major release 14.0, shipping on 2021-05-22.
What is the tentative timeline for `git init` to change in default to
`main` in the Git project? It would go a long way for the git
community.
Thanks,
Daniel Gruesso
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:38 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
And I have to admit that I am somewhat concerned about your students if
one of their instructors thinks that their education shouldn't prepare
them for more than working locally on their computers. Aren't they at all
interested in preparing the students for life after university? If so,
they will most certainly be affected by GitHub's decision.
GitHub's decision will most affect projects that haven't started
yet, simply because they won't have to incur any "transition" cost
the existing projects may have to consider. And given enough time,
old projects die out and there will be more new projects than the
projects we currently have, hopefully.
Until that happens, they would be affected more by decision by the
projects they interact with, as it is most convenient if your local
name matches the name the upstream uses. And the versions of Git
way before people started talking about 'master' and 'main' have
long been prepared for that, and we've been closing possible gaps in
the recent versions. "git clone" would notice what name the upstream
uses and uses the same name locally.
Even when they work locally, they'll start getting 'main' from their
Git soon, and that would become consistent with the name that their
"upstream" projects are likely to choose due to this "industry wide"
push.
quoted
Any repository created on GitHub will have that branch name by default.
Likewise on Azure DevOps. I fully expect the other hosters to follow at
some stage, and also for `git init` to change the default in a future
version (I am working toward that goal).
...
Maybe Git itself is not a good example for that. Bigger projects face
dramatically bigger challenges replacing the default branch name because
of the short term disruption caused by it. Nevertheless, a growing number
of projects have already renamed their default branch, such as Snowpack
(https://github.com/snowpackjs/snowpack) and the react-refresh webpack
plugin (https://github.com/pmmmwh/react-refresh-webpack-plugin) but also
bigger ones such as LLVM (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project).
Yes, thanks for giving Patricia and likeminded souls more usable
ammunition than just us ;-)