( NOTE: This is no longer needed, set below) git config -global alias.new '!git init & git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/main' You can add an alias " git new" that will default to whatever starting branch you like.
MOVE FILES FROM BRANCH TO MASTER GIT UPDATE
Update the default branch to be origin/main.$ git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD refs/remotes/origin/mainįrom the tweet above (Thanks Brad from !), these steps If someone has a local clone, then can update their locals like this: $ git checkout master
Git push -u origin main Updating local clones TL DR in conclusion: git branch -m master main This is because -m is -move and all your reflog is unchanged! NOTE: For more complex repos also check your protected branch rules. However, usually unless your CI explicitly calls for a branch by name, changing master to main will "just work!" The last thing to think about is if you have a CI/CD, GitHub Action, Azure DevOps pipeline or some other build system that pulls a specific branch. I can also update the tracking branch manually as seen here, but if you use git push -u origin main it'll do both. Now I just need to change my default branch in my GitHub settings for my repository. Another great option for your main github branch is "latest." The goal is to just be unambiguous. NOTE: Changing the default branch to "main" also has the benefit of starting with "ma" so that autocomplete muscle memory still works. Remote: Create a pull request for 'main' on GitHub by visiting: I'll just "git branch -m master main" and then push it back! Remember that -m is -move so your history isn't changed! Even better I can " git push -u origin main" to set the upstream at the same time. I have had dozens of git repositories that have 'master' as the main branch.
So we see that while the word master doesn't always connote slave, for many, it's evocative via basic word-association and they just don't want to look at the word on their prompt all day. Git likely uses master in the context of "master copy" or "master recording." UPDATE: There is Good analysis of the whole main branch convo in the Git Rev News: Edition 65. You might say, "I'm all for not using master in master-slave technical relationships, but this is clearly an instance of master-copy, not master-slave." The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) points out that "Master-slave is an oppressive metaphor that will and should never become fully detached from history" as well as "In addition to being inappropriate and arcane, the master-slave metaphor is both technically and historically inaccurate." There's lots of more accurate options depending on context and it costs me nothing to change my vocabulary, especially if it is one less little speed bump to getting a new person excited about tech.
0 kommentar(er)
