A Senior Developer working mostly with PHP and JavaScript, with a bit of Python thrown in for good measure, all on Linux. My tooling is simple, it's GitLab and JetBrains where possible.
My first thought on this was that pipelines everywhere are going to fail. Especially if it's rolled out wholesale to every repository out there. I was then concerned that all they would do would be give master another name, and create an alias so master would still work for people, in which case it is just lip service and will come back to bite GitHub massively.
I want the development community to be inclusive, and I want those involved to feel comfort for the long term. It does concern me that more people are going to be offended by this, but I think that no matter what happens, some people will look for offence in any action or inaction.
Having seen more happen about this in the last day or so, I've come to believe the GitHub are rushing this to cash in more as fast as possible. Over at GitLab, there's a more careful and considered approach being considered, in letting people choose the name of the default branch. Yes, that may cause confusion as different projects and organisations may have different names for their primary/main/default/former-master branch, but when you get into working with git, that confusion will go.
GitHub forcing the change ultimately makes them oppressive and forceful. GitLab are being collaborative and inclusive by giving the choice at project creation. There may well be more truth in your "PR stunt" point than it first seems.
Developer advocate, full-stack engineer, startup co-founder & CTO, bringing 15 years of experience in Silicon Valley, including at Google and Yahoo!. Public speaker.
Location
🌐
Education
UC Santa Cruz Extension
Work
Developer Advocate at Weaviate, the open-source semantic search engine
My first thought on this was that pipelines everywhere are going to fail. Especially if it's rolled out wholesale to every repository out there. I was then concerned that all they would do would be give
masteranother name, and create an alias somasterwould still work for people, in which case it is just lip service and will come back to bite GitHub massively.I want the development community to be inclusive, and I want those involved to feel comfort for the long term. It does concern me that more people are going to be offended by this, but I think that no matter what happens, some people will look for offence in any action or inaction.
Having seen more happen about this in the last day or so, I've come to believe the GitHub are rushing this to cash in more as fast as possible. Over at GitLab, there's a more careful and considered approach being considered, in letting people choose the name of the default branch. Yes, that may cause confusion as different projects and organisations may have different names for their primary/main/default/former-master branch, but when you get into working with git, that confusion will go.
GitHub forcing the change ultimately makes them oppressive and forceful. GitLab are being collaborative and inclusive by giving the choice at project creation. There may well be more truth in your "PR stunt" point than it first seems.
Good point. Funny how good intentions can backfire.