Set initial-branch (#427)

[jsoref]

Fixes #427

Suppress noise about that git itself is changing its default branch. When actions/checkout is used, it will always be given a specific branch (or similar) to check things out, and thus the default branch is not used...

Run actions/checkout@v2.0.0

Run actions/checkout@v2.0.0
  with:
    fetch-depth: 2
    repository: org/repo
    token: ***
    persist-credentials: true
    clean: true
    lfs: false
Syncing repository: org/repo
Working directory is '/home/runner/work/org/repo'
/usr/bin/git version
git version 2.30.0
Deleting the contents of '/home/runner/work/org/repo'
/usr/bin/git init /home/runner/work/org/repo
hint: Using 'master' as the name for the initial branch. This default branch name
hint: is subject to change. To configure the initial branch name to use in all
hint: of your new repositories, which will suppress this warning, call:
hint: 
hint: 	git config --global init.defaultBranch <name>
hint: 
hint: Names commonly chosen instead of 'master' are 'main', 'trunk' and
hint: 'development'. The just-created branch can be renamed via this command:
hint: 
hint: 	git branch -m <name>
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/runner/work/org/repo/.git/

See #465 (comment) for a proof.

[jsoref]

@ericsciple: is there something I need to do to get this considered?

[jsoref]

@thboop @dscho: is there something I need to do to move this forward?

[dscho]

I would prefer a shorter name, and I would have much preferred a proper analysis why this change is safe (instead, I was forced to perform that analysis myself, from scratch, and I imagine that this is the problem that prevents the team from merging this PR: it just asks for too much effort on the reviewers' side).

Having said that, I would not mind this PR being merged as-is, I would merely prefer above-mentioned issues to be addressed.

[jsoref]

@hross what do I need to do to move this forward?

[dscho]

@ericsciple @TingluoHuang ping?

[jsoref]

@vanZeben is there something that can be done to move this along?

[kbrock]

Looks like this stalled.

Are there other suggestions on silencing this warning? It shows up quite a few times.

[jsoref]

@kbrock: I can rebase and you can use my fork that has the fix. Otherwise, you could technically create an action / wrapper /step that does:

git config --global init.defaultBranch silence_warning_about_default_branch

[MestreLion]

My opinions on this:

• The long form --initial-branch was a great choice. It's self-descriptive, and would have little to no point saving a few bytes with -b
• The chosen branch name is only temporary and not referenced anywhere. It couldn't be otherwise, as the current master used by default is not hardcoded anywhere in this tool, and even when it doesn't match the cloned repo's this tool works on them just fine.
• So, how about dummy? It's short, it clearly states it is temporary and irrelevant, and it avoids taking sides about master/main.

And remember that just like @dscho I'm not a maintainer (and not even a contributor), just a developer very interested in this PR going forward and eventually being accepted. It's been more than an year guys!

(PS: @jsoref , you might mark your conversation with @dscho as resolved, it would be one less red status on the pending items summary, this might incentivize a reviewer . And maybe ping an actual (human) maintainer/reviewer, as that CODEOWNERS file you used to ping the team seems to have errors (@actions/actions-runtime is not an actual team), so no one was actually pinged.)

[jsoref]

@mouismail?

I'm happy to pick any name that a codeowner suggests.

Personally I use placeholder for my default branches (it doesn't have any negative connotations), but I don't want people to think that I'm actively favoring that here or that my use of placeholder would relate to the use here...

Anyway, I'm more than happy to update this (or any of my other PRs) although I'm about to be relatively unavailable for a bit.

[MestreLion]

Anyway, I'm more than happy to update this (or any of my other PRs) although I'm about to be relatively unavailable for a bit.

I suggest you preemptively change the branch name now to something shorter, such as your placeholder (a good choice!), or dummy, main or even master (current implicit default), just to avoid a situation where a reviewer asks for a change and this PR blocks again because you're unavailable. I believe the shorter names above will make it more likely for this PR to be accepted and merged without changes even if you're AFK.