-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 167
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Rename primary branch to main #2761
Comments
The clone in the regular ci jobs I think will be ok (for example - https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-linuxone/configure). It is as follows:
which should still be ok if the default is renamed. |
@richardlau, myself and @sxa looked at this today. The main dependency is on build jobs which pull files from the build repo. Those we believe will all be handled by the github redirects. We will update those over time but because of the redirects is lower risk to just leave in place and do incrementally. @nodejs/build FYI you will need to need to retarget their pushes to main going forward. These are the notes GitHub provided when we renamed: git branch -m master <BRANCH>
git fetch origin
git branch -u origin/<BRANCH> <BRANCH>
git remote set-head origin -a We added a branch protection rule that should prevent future pushes to master. |
Had to update some references in the Windows CI jobs where build/jenkins/scripts/windows/ci-run.cmd Line 14 in 0e963e3
|
Haven't seen or been made aware of any other issues apart from the broken (now fixed) Windows CI so believe this is done. |
I took a look at https://ci.nodejs.org/job/post-build-status-update/ and it is very red. The job was specifying to run the pipeline file from The confusing thing is there were some successful runs about an hour ago so it can't be entirely the branch rename as that happened two weeks ago. |
We are going through all of the node.js repositories to rename the primary branch to main. Please see nodejs/node#33864 for more context.
There might be a number of places we need to change jobs that use the build repo (although maybe if we use the default branch it might just be ok).
I think to start we should try to capture in this issue what might breach if we rename the default branch and then go from there.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: