So fucking sick of this shit. I have yet to find a method of changing a local cloned copy's upstream HEAD, source, branch, whatever, from master to main. Nothing I find searching works. I hate git to begin with, having to fuck around with what should be a very simple operation is just awful. I'm only able to fix it by just cloning again.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
You are a retard
I most likely have brain damage, yes.
I suppose I could just move the build folders out then in again. A lot of these required setting up symlinks to other directories. Whatever.
I notice neither of you gave an answer, so go slob some knob, worthless fuckwits. Don't try to prop up your pathetic hollow shell you call self esteem on my thread.
imagine getting angry at typing less
Tried that. There's nothing to push anyway, it's not my repo or anything I have anything to do with. It's just a cloned local copy I want to track main instead of master.
I just finished updating my repos (for now) anyway. There's probably some symlinked shit in the vulkan and SPIRV dependencies I forgot about but whatever.
I'm not a programmer, I'm a hobbyist at most. Though it's interesting that watching stuff I seem to know more than actual programmers. Like locality and inline asm were the first things I taught myself because I wanted to deal with endianness and use bswap. Then I see that programmers are shocked that std::map or whatever has terrible performance. Do they teach these people anything?
Wow, you're so smart, anon. All whose buzzwords. But you're just a hihi hobbyist, aka neet.
You can't even make a branch, retard.
Do modern programmers really not know how to make new branches?
>I have yet to find a method of changing a local cloned copy's upstream HEAD, source, branch, whatever, from master to main.
Does it help if you know you're looking to change the name of the default branch? At least then you'll change the right thing.
Apart from that, it's basic ops; just make a branch with the new name and start using it as if it is the primary branch. Once people you're collaborating with have switched over, change the name of the default branch and nuke the old branch (assuming it is purely behind the new one).
I'm not collaborating. It's just a local copy of a cloned repo, so when I periodically "git pull" I need it tracking the correct branch. I can't fetch, switch, or anything. Just says some variant of error branch main not found in remote/origin/whatever I try.
I just really don't get it. I don't get this program and the underlying logical framework its operations stem from. It is very backwards and unintuitive to me. Maybe if I used it in a team setting like you're suggesting it would become clear, but I just use it to modify a local copy based on upstream changes.
Then why do you care?
Just git clone && git pull every once in a while and don't read the .git/config file and you literally won't ever see the branch name
I'm sorry, I don't get why I'm having to respond to this "why do you care" bullshit. I have like 20 cloned repos locally which all have been changed to main at their source. It's not about changing the name, I can't pull and would rather just write a bash function to ust write git_fix or something and automatically take care of this. Having to clone, reconfigure build systems, etc, is just bullshit. I have it there, just fucking point to main instead of master, and it won't fucking do it.
Do you get it? Does this make sense to you now? What in the absolute fuck is wrong with everyone? Don't pull this inversion horseshit where you subtly imply and start angling at this narrative where I'm fucked up, retarded, and am the whole problem. I AM NOT THE PROBLEM.
>why don't you just
>oh.... i see, maybe you should just
>ugh you can JUSt
How about this, it can JUST point to main instead of master when I JUST give it a few commands.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
>I have like 20 cloned repos locally which all have been changed to main at their source.
But you talked about only wanting to change them locally. You don't want to change them locally, they've BEEN CHANGED upstream.
Both your tense (past/present/future) and your description of the location (local/upstream) were wrong, and yet you cry about not being spoonfed.
I can tell you the 3 magic commands to fix your problem.
But you have to say please.
I already re-cloned them all and have nothing to test it on now.
> re-cloned it
lol, dumbass. That's like making a backup of a backup.
git branch -M master main
git branch --move master main
>having to fuck around with what should be a very simple operation is just awful
seeing that you're a wintoddler, just use a fucking GUI
I use MSYS2 constantly. Cry moar.
>I use MSYS2
wintoddler LARPing as a linux distro user
Why do you want to rename it? I like being reminded of slavery. God, I hate naggers.
Everyone else renames it, so I need to keep tracking the correct upstream branch.
>seething idiot doesn't know how to read manuals
Yes. I also don't know how to cope.
try reading the manual. how do you expect to know anything if you don't study?
Yes. I have to set some time aside to really sit down and immerse in it.
>implying I can't skim it when needed as well
>thinks skimming is a useful skill
ngmi. you're an NPC tech worker.
Nope. Stop replying with hollow garbage.
honestly it still fucking baffles my mind that this whole "master -> main" thing happened
human ADULTS over at microsoft actually made that decision, breaking a decade old standard along with countless scripts & documentation, because of a word that isn't even fucking racist and labeling it as such makes no fucking sense, and several fucking people were telling them so, yet they did it anyway.
Usually when woke libtards do shit, i can kind of see where they are coming from, like reparations, i can kind of see the idea "hey blackies are poor probably because most of their ancestors were slaves so maybe we should compensate them" i disagree with it obviously because its retarded if you think it through, but i get the initial idea. Or banning the n-word, i also disagree with because free speech is more important, but you know i see the idea that "its a bad word that makes people angry so maybe we shouldnt say it".
But this "utilizing the word master in any context makes it racist because muh slavery" is beyond stupid. The definition of the word isn't' even tied to slaveryin any way, it just happened to be the fitting word used to describe the owner of slaves, but the word itself doesn't actually have anything to do with slavery. Its like saying we should ban cotton because thats what slaves used to pick.
Like what a fucking clown world. I know it happened but somehow i dont believe it. Part of my brain wants to categorize this as unrealistic twitter LARP that would never happen IRL, but no it actually happened what the fuck
They say its racist which annoys the FUCK out of me and the woke reasoning behind everything they do of justified destruction of white people and rheir culture is infuriating! Their micro aggressions and and publicly accepted hostility towards their homeland and its culture, makes me want to use the terms out of spite.
With that said, I honestly only think of degenerate sex fetish stuff when I hear the terms, master&slave. Maybe Im brain broken from our kike masters, but frankly Im tired of degenerate coomer shit everywhere and despite what the woke claims is their sick reasoning behind what they push, I dont want to teach my sons or daughters computers using porn terms.
Leftism is a mental disease and needs to be treated as such.
Run these commands (based on assumptions from your OP)
git checkout main
git branch -D master
git pull -p
It will switch to main branch, track it, delete local master branch.
Doesn't work. Gives an error, refs/remotes/origin/master doesn't exist. That's what it says no matter what I do.
Everything gives an error.
These posts are retarded and I actually think they're bots.
>hurr no u retard
Yes, you are a retarded and or a bot here to frustrate and torment me.
I don't mind the switch to master. I was actually using gender neutral pronouns in early childhood, befiore it was cool. All the normies then? They said it was weird and retarded.
>I don't mind the switch to master.
Even in the case of I/O and storage devices, master and slave isn't the most accurate terminology for the hierarchical relationship.
I am glad my posts annoy you.
It's like a drip of water in an ocean. Don't get too excited.
I'm just doing my part.
>i was using gender neutral pronouns before it was cool
Stop trying to spin this. Its never been cool. Your outting yourself as always being a loser. Now its mainstream loserdom. Top loser.
they/them just makes sense if you don't have a low IQ. Pretty straightforward.
Addressing a hypothetical abstract person? They. It's not male or female. It's not him, it's not her, it's not his/her, it's not alternating between the two. Now that's cringe. Writing her in some places and his in another.
You are a retarded animal.
I changed my master branch to massa
Nope. Cannot be guaranteed to be correct. Has its own meaning. He is not gender neutral.
What are you, a divine androgyne worshipper? What a joke people are.
Male pronouns have always been neutral untill trannies made it an issue. MANKid, huMAN, dude, etc. Your male until proven female.
It is so annoying how it tends to lock you due to conflicts all the time.
git remote set-head origin/main
>And how is that worse than not knowing whether you're talking about a single individual or multiple with your 'they' shit?
It's implicit. If you use he or she, you're talking about a known and specific element which can be either singular or plural. Likewise with they, it's the same thing. Literally. There is zero difference.
You're talking about the common man in the abstract, in archaic terms.
"He goes to the voting boothe and casts his ballot, as he knows to do little else. He takes comfort in this, though it does little. The common man."
Tell me, am I talking about an individual, or an abstract concept that is male and plural? They is, quite literally, 1:1, the exact same. There is no difference. Period.
So that's off the table. As for how people around you use it, people are retarded. What can I tell you. Or maybe it's you, hard to say.
No. They were always ambiguous. For example God was interpreted as being male, despite being the All.
It's retarded and a flaw of English. Other languages don't have this.
Jesus Christ ask chatGPT fucking retard
You do it.