[VOTE] Switch 'master' to 'main' branch for repositories
mail at aparcar.org
Tue Mar 21 15:41:33 PDT 2023
I’d like to conclude this vote, which was closed after the 20th March 2023.
The final result is as follows:
Details are available here: https://openwrt.org/voting/2023-02-27
Since we’re doing simple majority votes, this one passed. Thanks to everyone who voted and joined the discussion.
As previously mentioned, I’m fine implementing these changes unless anyone else is keen to do so. Ideally I’d do all steps with an additional person sitting by, so whoever got the time, please reach out.
I truly hope that nobody is discouraged by the result of this vote and the technical obstacles stay near zero. All the best to everyone,
> On 19. Mar 2023, at 20:25, Ted Hess <thess at kitschensync.net> wrote:
> Hi folks -
> Enough of this impossible discussion -- I would like to change my vote on this to 'NO'
> for the reason of 'no technical value' and certainly a waste of time.
> On 3/19/2023 11:07:17 AM, "Hans Dedecker" <dedeckeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 8:06 AM Felix Fietkau <nbd at nbd.name> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> More and more projects are switching their repositories to use the
>>> 'main' branch instead of the 'master' branch. This also includes many
>>> Linux upstream trees as well. Some trees are even removing their
>>> 'master' branches already.
>>> I think this is becoming more and more mainstream and expected of
>>> projects, so we should do the same.
>>> I would like to propose the following:
>>> 1. Change the git server side to automatically update the 'master'
>>> branch, whenever an update is pushed to 'main'.
>>> It's important to have a long transition period in order to avoid
>>> breaking downstream users' workflows.
>>> 2. Change the git server side to refuse a push to 'master' if 'main'
>>> exists. This avoid accidental branch divergence
>>> 3. Developers simply change their git configs to always push to 'main'
>>> Once this change is well established, we can look into removing
>>> 'master', but we should definitely take our time with that.
>> NACK, I don't see any technical gains for the project.
>> In the context of the OpenWrt project I'm not interested in politics
>>> - Felix
>>> openwrt-adm mailing list
>>> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
>> openwrt-adm mailing list
>> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
More information about the openwrt-adm