rename master branch to main

[jordandsullivan]

To be more in line with default naming for primary branches in the industry: https://github.com/github/renaming

I think since github will redirect master links to main (according to https://github.com/github/renaming?tab=readme-ov-file#whats-already-changed), the best thing to do is

1. Change the name of master to main via this GUI:
   
   Changing the name may still break CI/CD, but it should be fixed after step 3.

2. Create a branch where we'll replace all the instances of "master" with "main" in our documentation, tutorials, and actions.

3. Merge this branch into the newly named main branch

[jordandsullivan]

@natestemen @FarLab @purva-thakre Happy with this plan?

[natestemen]

LGTM! I'd just add that I think step 2 should come first, and then just before merging said PR, step 1 should be taken followed by 3. Then, there could be a step 4 as well. Something like

4. Send message in #mitiq channel describing how to change the name of the local master branch to main.

This should help prevent things from getting into a bad state by starting the process, and not finishing it in one fell swoop.

[jordandsullivan]

Okey doke. Sounds good. So the final plan would be

• 1. Create a branch (rename master branch to main #2259) where we'll replace all the instances of "master" with "main" in our documentation, tutorials, and actions.

• 2a. Change the name of master to main via the GitHub GUI

• 2b. Add "changed name of master branch to main" to changelog

• 3. Merge rename master branch to main #2259 into the newly named main branch

• 4. Send message in #mitiq channel in Discord describing how to change the name of the local master branch to main.

[jordandsullivan]

Do we want to leave the existing changelog saying "master" since that's what it was called when past changes were made?

[natestemen]

I think it's probably best to use main going forward, but not to change it in the changelog for things prior to this change. I can see reasons for both decisions, but I lean this way. Do you have a preference?

[jordandsullivan]

Yeah I agree. Use master for old entries to the change log and main going forward.

…

On Tue, Apr 2, 2024, 1:04 PM nate stemen ***@***.***> wrote: I think it's probably best to use main going forward, but not to change it in the changelog for things prior to this change. I can see reasons for both decisions, but I lean this way. Do you have a preference? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2259 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADYYB53MT7X52B7CNRX6K3LY3MFMDAVCNFSM6AAAAABFT4LDNCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMZTGAYDCNZUGA> . You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jordandsullivan]

I'm not quite sure a good way to update the changelog to say we've made this change since it isn't a release. Any suggestions for format?

[cosenal]

I'm not quite sure a good way to update the changelog to say we've made this change since it isn't a release. Any suggestions for format?

Since you have a PR with that, isn't it going to show up automatically in the changelog?

[natestemen]

Yup this will get populated in the changelog when the next release is done!