If these options clearly make git better, why aren't they the defaults?

My config if you'd like to steal it, also here: https://github.com/silvanocerza/dotfiles/blob/master/git/git...

Mind that you need diff-so-fancy for this work correctly. https://github.com/so-fancy/diff-so-fancy

    [alias]
        co = checkout
        ci = commit
        cl = clone
        st = status
        f = fetch
        br = branch
        lg = log --graph --abbrev-commit --decorate --date=relative --format=format:'%C(bold blue)%h%C(reset) %C(bold green)(%ar)%C(reset) %C(yellow)- %an%C(reset)%C(auto)%d%C(reset)%n"        "%C(white)%s%C(reset)' --all
        lgg = log --graph --abbrev-commit --decorate --format=format:'%C(bold blue)%h%C(reset) - %C(bold cyan)%aD%C(reset) %C(bold green)(%ar)%C(reset)%C(auto)%d%C(reset)%n''          %C(white)%s%C(reset) %C(dim white)- %an%C(reset)'
        type = cat-file -t
        dump = cat-file -p
        # Lists all local branches that have been deleted on remote
        gone = ! "git for-each-ref --format '%(refname:short) %(upstream:track)' | awk '$2 == \"[gone]\" {print $1}' | xargs git branch -D"
    
    [color]
        ui = true
    
    [push]
        default = simple
    
    [merge]
        tool = meld
        conflictStyle = zdiff3
    
    [diff]
        algorithm = histogram
        colorMoved = dimmed-zebra
        colorMovedWS = no
        mnemonicPrefix = true
        renames = true
    
    [rerere]
        enabled = true
    
    [pager]
        branch = false
    
    [core]
        pager = diff-so-fancy | less --tabs=4 -RFX
        fsmonitor = true
        untrackedCache = true
    
    [color "diff-highlight"]
        oldNormal = red bold
        oldHighlight = red bold 52
        newNormal = bold
        newHighlight = green bold 22
    
    [color "diff"]
        meta = yellow
        frag = magenta bold
        commit = yellow bold
        old = red bold
        new = green bold
        whitespace = red reverse
    
    [diff-so-fancy]
        markEmptyLines = false
    
    [filter "lfs"]
        clean = git-lfs clean -- %f
        smudge = git-lfs smudge -- %f
        process = git-lfs filter-process
        required = true
    
    [pull]
        rebase = false
    
    [init]
        defaultBranch = main
    
    [column]
        ui = auto
    
    [branch]
        sort = -committerdate
    
    [commit]
        verbose = true

> Personally, I don’t have a problem with master

> updating the default value. I wish Git had some taste here, but they don't

So author has no preference, but git does not have a good taste here, for not breaking backward compatibility. Typical passive agresive bullshit!

I think "main" is not inclusive enough, we should use something like "non-specific-but-strong-branch". Or something that includes even stronger message. And change it every year (or month). It could be automated using github actions on all existing repos!

Also please rename "git" command, it is very insensitive word!!!

It's not really a major issue, but the way this "problem" was created and then forced onto the rest of us by someone with very strong opinions — but zero actual technical accomplishments in git development — is annoying, that's all. And it keeps reminding you of itself — see the first paragraph.

So, if you have a git mirror in a private location that you need to push to, you get royally fucked in the arse by every project deciding to change their value for HEAD. These people basically broke 'git push' for my usecase.

So either they fix 'git push' to update the symrefs as well or shut up about using anything else than 'master'.

And there's a whole new breed of programmers out there who feel offended on behalf of others about renaming versus not renaming, for example, the word "robot" comes from slave in Slavic languages and it should be banned, etc.

I somewhat agree with either banning all potentially offensive words or none at all, so let's go with none? Otherwise git is now simply gatekeeping offensiveness, and that's absurd.

I assume many people, like me, would have git aliases which use a hardcoded master branch name. I several of these aliases. I've had to update them all to check what the actual master/main name is and use that instead, because our org started following the "main" naming convention and we ended up with various repos with "master" and others with "main".

I personally like standardisation, because I prefer to spend time thinking about more important things. So I was mildly (but only mildly) peeved when I had to start thinking about which repo I was on and what the "master" branch was called.

But I've updated all my aliases now, so not so much of an issue.

  # git alias
  qp = "!f() { git add . && git commit -m \"$1\" && git push; }; f"


  # usage
  git qp "whatever your comment is"

I find it annoying to have those folders on my machine, that I don't need, but yet are checked into the git tree, so I basically cannot delete them, without affecting another person, when they pull my changes. Why you check that in bro??? Ugh.

I don't check in my Emacs backup files and shit either. I would like to aee their long faces, when faced with all of the files and folders other tools leave behind. People just aren't capable to configure their editors properly I guess and therefore rely on local config for things that could be global config or in a ".editorconfig", like for example trimming trailing whitespace.

Aside: Gemini mentioned it didn't want me to ask it questions about bikeshedding what shade of blue on a website header so I think it's got our number.

Yes, if those files apply to all team members using the same tool absolutely check them in. What's the problem? It reads to me like maybe you don't know what these files are actually used for and why a team benefits from sharing them.