The qpid-jms repo has now had its branch renamed as an initial test. Per https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21589, I have checked things over, updated the Jenkins jobs as needed and checked others. The repo seems fine, though there were a couple of small unexpected things in the process I noted (around certain commit JIRA update comments being replayed, and a couple PRs closing), but neither is a big deal and both would have happened in the other approach anyway. I have mainly noted them for completeness in case it was useful, but intend to ask infra to proceed with renaming the other repository branches.
For those with checkouts, these are GitHub's recommended steps to update an existing local repo accordingly, though you can of course just do a fresh clone instead and begin afresh: git branch -m master main git fetch origin git branch -u origin/main main If you update an existing clone like above, you will still have a 'remote ref' pointing to origin/master (e.g if you run git branch -avv you would see an entry like: remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master). This is because it's a local value and only gets set at the point of cloning, based on the default branch indicated by the remote repo at the time. Its mostly not important, but you can update it yourself anyway. I elected to do this, by explicitly setting the ref to origin/main and then pruning any origin refs that dont actually exist on the remote repo: git remote set-head origin main git remote prune --dry-run origin (Note the latter is a --dry-run, repeat it again without that if you are happy with what it said it will do, i.e it will indicate it would prune origin/master, but will also prune any other origin refs you have for branches that no longer exist in the remote repo) On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 at 17:07, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was going to begin this tomorrow as noted below, however since I > sent this proposal I have now been both on the receiving end of a > GitHub-driven rename and done some of them for myself...that is, doing > the rename with their tooling as described at > https://github.com/github/renaming. > > It is a nicer process than I outlined below, with some benefits we > wouldnt get doing it the other way. As we can actually push to the ASF > GitHub 'mirrors' if jumping through appropriate hoops first, I decided > to enquire with Infra whether it might actually be possible to use the > GitHub driven approach. It isnt something they have done before, but > said they'll take a look at it, and could perhaps use us to try it > out. I have now raised > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-21589 for this either way, > and I'll keep you updated with what is happening. > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 12:21, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > I would like to propose renaming our git repository default branches > > from "master" to "main" in keeping with general efforts to remove > > offensive language, and also aligning with it being the default naming > > approach on new repositories in various places for some time now. > > > > Having looked into doing this my understanding is that we simply > > create the new branches ourselves, start using them, and then ask > > infra to reconfigure the repository default branch both here and at > > GitHub. After that is done, we can then remove the old branches at our > > own discretion. > > > > Various updates could be needed as part of the process. Some CI jobs > > and scripts etc could need to be updated, maybe some READMES etc, > > there could be links that need updated, etc. I would take care of > > creating the branches, requesting INFRA update the repo defaults, and > > ensuring the CI builds and website are in order during/after the > > change. Committers would need to update their checkouts accordingly. > > Folks with their own CI jobs etc elsewhere may also need to make any > > updates as appropriate. > > > > Barring discussion otherwise, I would look to begin the process next > > week on Wednesday 17th. > > > > I would create branches in all our repositories and send a notice mail > > that it had been done, such that committers then make the swap over > > for pushing new work. I would then ask infra to make the repository > > changes, and proceed with updates to CI jobs etc. Perhaps adjusting > > the READMEs on master to make things more obvious for anyone looking > > at the repositories while it is still the default and/or both branches > > exist. After all is done, we can consider when/whether to remove the > > old branches. > > > > Robbie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
