• zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Imma be honest I pulled that estimate out of my ass lol, but I feel like it was pre-pandemic? which would put it at at least 4 years ago and so holy shit I’m gonna go cry in a corner because it’s been 4 years since the start of the pandemic

    • throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Isn’t this only the case in github? All my repos are based from master, and I would assume that’s because I init on the command line and push up to the remote?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        GitLab also changed a few years back. We host our own, so got the update later than people using the service … it was a bit of an argument at first since everyone wanted to stick with the familiar, but laziness won out. Unfortunately, it’s not really justifiable to go back and change legacy projects, so now it’s inconsistent

        • throwwyacc@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you don’t have any scripts that rely on branch name it should be pretty trivial actually. But I wouldn’t be shocked if you had a few dozen scripts that nobody has looked at in the last century lol

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The question actually came up for a new tool to help automate dependency updates. Do we need to change the config to account for the inconsistency?

            It turns out we don’t: it correctly uses the default branch, no matter what it’s called. However we had to consider the question. and investigate. It spent someone’s time