i was told to change the name of master recently because it carries with it the negative connotation of slavery. ie master/slave

master hasn't been updated in almost 15 years and there's no way in hell i'm going to touch that. lol

... Isn't master the current production code? How do you get a master that haven't been touched in 15 years?

Checkout followed by 400 build errors because your entire toolchain and build pipeline has changed since you last touched it.

When branches don't check out... that's a problem.

it has always bothered me that checkout is overloaded: it can switch branches or discard pending changes in an unrecoverable way.

so, PSA, you can replicate the safe part of checkout with git switch and the unsafe with git restore.

git push master --force

I still see master branches everywhere, even my new personal repos. This git renaming story is one of the most stupid OSS pushes I remember. That and Gimp fork, that then died out I think.

I usually create new repos through GitHub or another central repo's system, where it defaults to calling the main branch main. But I did recently create a new repo with my local Git's git init, and had to deal with a master branch on a completely new repo for the first time in a while. It was actually kinda a weird experience.

No latest branch

I never understood why we moved away from "trunk".