i think it's even funnier, that production systems do not use their own copy/fork of such repositories.. and it QUITE shows, how we parasitize from each other.

How can you expect a foreign system (which you can clone!) to always adhere to your standards, when there's not even a formal declaration what they will do and which migration standards they will follow.

i mean i can understand that for the garage-hobby-project.. for projects like yocto which are used by companies.. well the companies should pay yocto some money, so they at least can buy storage/whatever at github or another repository place.

yocto is also an embedded system, where you should be taking care of these things tidily, because your target devices are not always trivially updatable and often have longer lifetime cycles than revs of normal software

YES! EXACTLY!

Haha truth be told this is on my selfhosted gitlab and I just don't know how to rename it. The old ones are master new repos main

Yeah, ive had issues with repos on github having master and new ones having main. Github api seems to force the default branch to main (on new repos) making fixing this harder as well.

It's not that big of a deal but sure is a hassle.

I just created a new repo with just a master branch. Where does Github force anything?

They're sure suggesting it - their suggested commands to initialize a new repo will create a main branch. But you can just ignore that suggestion?

Perhaps you missed that the person you are replying to was talking about the GitHub API and not their web interface?

Here’s the API reference: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/repos#create-an-or...

I don’t see any parameter for setting the default to master instead of main. However it does seem like you can change it after it has been created with a subsequent update call.

I'd expect you'd still create an empty repo (same as in the web UI) and then push the branches you want to push. You don't configure a branch name in the web ui as well.

But that's why I'm asking where OP found that and not just saying they're wrong.

€: There's also https://docs.github.com/en/rest/reference/repos#update-a-rep... where you can set the default_branch?

edit: my bad, I expected it to be the case but it turns out I had it in my gitconfig instead.

They are just going along the git default, so yes, a new repo will be on main branch by default.

No, the Git default is still master. GitHub changed their default to main.

Right, I was confused by my .gitconfig.

No, this is still incorrect. It’s not the future default either. Nobody has made the decision to change the default at present.

It's just that, and the "create a first commit/branch/README for me" thing it can do presumably does that with "main" now also.

As @zerocrates mentioned, it's about the github auto commit feature when creating a new repo. This makes bootstrapping using terraform more complicated.

> Github api seems to force the default branch to main (on new repos)

Jesus, really? I didn't pay much attention to the master nonsense because I figured it would be limited to projects who cared more about social performance than building something useful, but it sounds like it's being forced at the platform-level onto every project.

OTOH, the impact is mitigated for new projects

I may have misspoken, you can change the default branch after the fact, my issue was with the "auto-create README" feature

There is a HEAD ref which represents the default branch, and points to master, main, develop or whatever.

If you were assuming ‘master’ you were probably already making a bad assumption. I’ve seen projects that use ‘dev’, ‘develop’, etc, etc. I’d consider it a good thing to make your scripts less fragile.

An if statement???? Can you imagine? Next thing you know we'll need VARIABLES

More branching logic means more opportunity for bugs. Even if it is just an if statement.

From a pure bug perspective this change has literally only downsides