Hi Junio,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> diff --git a/builtin/fast-export.c b/builtin/fast-export.c
> >> index 85868162ee..a306a60d25 100644
> >> --- a/builtin/fast-export.c
> >> +++ b/builtin/fast-export.c
> >> @@ -497,7 +497,7 @@ static void *anonymize_ref_component(const void *old, size_t *len)
> >> {
> >> static int counter;
> >> struct strbuf out = STRBUF_INIT;
> >> - strbuf_addf(&out, "ref%d", counter++);
> >> + strbuf_addf(&out, "ref%d", ++counter);
> >> return strbuf_detach(&out, len);
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ static const char *anonymize_refname(const char *refname)
> >> * anything interesting.
> >> */
> >> if (!strcmp(refname, "refs/heads/master"))
> >> - return refname;
> >> + return "ref0";
> >
> > This is obviously wrong. It should return "refs/heads/ref0".
> > ...
> > So, I guess we should just fix the patch I am responding to to
> > return "refs/heads/ref0" instead of "ref0", and queue it as one of
> > the preparatory steps.
>
> ... and the follow-up step to become part of the series you are
> working on to allow customing what the primary branch is called
> would turn the second hunk to
>
> - if (!strcmp(refname, "refs/heads/master"))
> + if (!strcmp(refname, get_primary_branch_name(0)))
> return "refs/heads/ref0";
Right.
> By the way, with your "two variables" approach to make both the
> "default" (for 'init' and 'clone') and the "primary" (for
> 'fmt-merge-msg' and 'fast-export') configurable, we'd need accessor
> function(s) for the primary branch name for the given repository.
> The get_primary_branch_name() helper function might want to take a
> "struct repository *" argument in addition to "please give me an
> abbreviated refname" boolean, given the recent push to pass the
> struct to everybody.
My current state defines a `repo_main_branch_name(flags)` function where
the flags can be `MAIN_BRANCH_SHORT_NAME` and `MAIN_BRANCH_FOR_INIT`.
So I think we're on the same page.
BTW I heard from a couple sides that "primary" would imply that there is
also a "secondary" branch, and potentially an ordering of all branches,
which is why I did not really consider "primary" as candidate. Besides, it
is so much more awkward to type than "main" (especially when you're as
tired as I am right now...).
That's why I try to stay with "main" for the moment.
Ciao,
Dscho
