The Git Development Community is working to at least make the name of the main branch easily configurable, so in not so far future having "main" or "trunk" branch instead of current default of "master" from git-init / git-clone would be much easier.
From humble beginnings at an MSP, I've adventured through life as a sysadmin, into an engineer, and finally landed as a developer focused on fixing problems with automation.
From humble beginnings at an MSP, I've adventured through life as a sysadmin, into an engineer, and finally landed as a developer focused on fixing problems with automation.
Because you asked what was wrong with a 7-step init process, in response to someone mentioning that the git developers are working on making it a configuration option.
From humble beginnings at an MSP, I've adventured through life as a sysadmin, into an engineer, and finally landed as a developer focused on fixing problems with automation.
We also don't have to worry about alias syntax, which is terminal-type-dependent, and can include it in provisioning/dotfiles repos and it works regardless of the person's system. :)
It wasn't available yet (though it was already in the pipeline). I was responding to Max, whose response suggested that the addition wasn't necessary and the then-current workflow was sufficient.
Even if the latest release (with this config option) hadn't been out when I responded with the config, I still would have argued in favor of having it as a config option, with the same arguments of being able to set it once and not have to worry about terminal aliases, etc.
Flexibility like this is critical for the health of software development in general. IMO this is a good stress test on software maintainability in general.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
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.
The Git Development Community is working to at least make the name of the main branch easily configurable, so in not so far future having "main" or "trunk" branch instead of current default of "master" from git-init / git-clone would be much easier.
What's wrong with it now?
As far as I remember, changing the default branch would be able to be done with command line parameter or a configuration variable
or
Please tell me you're being facetious...
Why would I be? It's as easy as specifying the branch name in your checkout command to change what your default is.
Because you asked what was wrong with a 7-step init process, in response to someone mentioning that the git developers are working on making it a configuration option.
It's not a seven-step process, though, that was just a complete example for illustration. It's as simple as:
Or, we can just do
once, and never have to worry about it again.
We also don't have to worry about alias syntax, which is terminal-type-dependent, and can include it in provisioning/dotfiles repos and it works regardless of the person's system. :)
This option was, as far as I know, not available at the time of writing the blog post in question, and possibly also when I was writing my comment.
It wasn't available yet (though it was already in the pipeline). I was responding to Max, whose response suggested that the addition wasn't necessary and the then-current workflow was sufficient.
Even if the latest release (with this config option) hadn't been out when I responded with the config, I still would have argued in favor of having it as a config option, with the same arguments of being able to set it once and not have to worry about terminal aliases, etc.
Flexibility like this is critical for the health of software development in general. IMO this is a good stress test on software maintainability in general.