A Freelance DevOps doing container stuff and automating unhealthy amounts of software.
Need something automated or containerized? Feel free to hit me up :)
It's disappointing that they didn't act in unison to make the same change. Putting the motivation behind the change aside, the result is that they have created a bit of work for users.
No, the plattforms that host git have created work for users.
The change to a different branchname was discussed in the git community on kernel.org and ultimately the majority decided to leave it up to the users via the init.defaultBranch configuration.
That is what huge projects like git do, they vote and implement what the majority decides it wants.
So they actually did "act in unison", just how you wanted them to.
Those that did not participate in that well-established voting-process and "did not act in unison" with the rest of the community, those were the hosting platforms you mentioned.
I hope you don't mind the feedback, but this post would have been much better without the political blame-game in the first paragraph.
It is a sensitive topic and just sparks unneccessary flamewars. Which happened dozens of times on DEV already.
The focus in this post is on the pragmatic side of maintaining public repos. What I said is intended to be neutral and is merely discussing the impact and solution.
The quotation you included, 'they' refers to everyone (git and git host providers). I have updated it to 'everyone' to be clear.
It's disappointing that everyone didn't act in unison to make the same change. Putting the motivation behind the change aside, the result is that they have created a bit of work for users.
People should be free to express their opinion on a topic sensitive or otherwise. It just needs to be respectful. I have no issue with your comment, but you misconstrued what I said. I have no interest in discussing the why or who in this scenario. It needed to be pointed out that there is a divergence between the parties involved. All good 😀👍
A Freelance DevOps doing container stuff and automating unhealthy amounts of software.
Need something automated or containerized? Feel free to hit me up :)
The quotation you included, 'they' refers to everyone (git and git host providers). I have updated it to 'everyone' to be clear.
Fair enough, english grammar is weird that way, it sounded like it was focused on the Git core. Sorry about that and thank you for the correction! Now it is absolutely clear what you meant and what inspired this post.
I have no interest in discussing the why or who in this scenario.
Neither do I, so it's all good :)
If I had a seal of approval, I'd give it now!
Thank you for the work you put in this post, it's very appreciated.
Lol thanks Raphael. Ya, Its just to reduce the config pain for others. I always appreciate when someone has solved something and shares a short answer to overcome it quickly.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
No, the plattforms that host git have created work for users.
The change to a different branchname was discussed in the git community on kernel.org and ultimately the majority decided to leave it up to the users via the init.defaultBranch configuration.
That is what huge projects like git do, they vote and implement what the majority decides it wants.
So they actually did "act in unison", just how you wanted them to.
Those that did not participate in that well-established voting-process and "did not act in unison" with the rest of the community, those were the hosting platforms you mentioned.
I hope you don't mind the feedback, but this post would have been much better without the political blame-game in the first paragraph.
It is a sensitive topic and just sparks unneccessary flamewars. Which happened dozens of times on DEV already.
Hi Raphael
The focus in this post is on the pragmatic side of maintaining public repos. What I said is intended to be neutral and is merely discussing the impact and solution.
The quotation you included, 'they' refers to everyone (git and git host providers). I have updated it to 'everyone' to be clear.
People should be free to express their opinion on a topic sensitive or otherwise. It just needs to be respectful. I have no issue with your comment, but you misconstrued what I said. I have no interest in discussing the why or who in this scenario. It needed to be pointed out that there is a divergence between the parties involved. All good 😀👍
Fair enough, english grammar is weird that way, it sounded like it was focused on the Git core. Sorry about that and thank you for the correction! Now it is absolutely clear what you meant and what inspired this post.
Neither do I, so it's all good :)
If I had a seal of approval, I'd give it now!
Thank you for the work you put in this post, it's very appreciated.
Lol thanks Raphael. Ya, Its just to reduce the config pain for others. I always appreciate when someone has solved something and shares a short answer to overcome it quickly.