Matt Rogers <mattr94@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think that's not very convincing. If branch names in general are identifying > enough to warrant anonymization then shouldn't the default name be too? It is a good argument. I also heard a rumor that often branch names contain codewords given to pre-released hardware that are highly confidential in certain circles, and heard that it is one of the reasons why Gerrit has server side ACL that lets you hide some branches from authenticated users that can access other branches. Again, the original comment explains why 'master' without such a configuration knob was not worth protecting, but what it does not explain is why keeping it (and only that branch name) unmunged gives a more useful result than munging everything. From the point of view of "I want to debug the shape of the DAG, without the actual user data", munging 'master' to 'ref47' while other branches like 'next' are munged to 'ref%d' does not make it harder to use or less useful for the debugging than only 'master' is kept intact in the output stream.
