Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > I just realized that the comment above reads: > > /* > * We also leave "master" as a special case, since it does not reveal > * anything interesting. > */ > > > Obviously, we need to change that comment here because we do not leave the > name unchanged. How about this? > > /* > * We special-case the main branch, anonymizing it to `ref0`. > */ If you are going to update it, why not make it useful? I complained number of times during the discussion that the original comment explains why leaving 'master' as-is does not reveal anything useful to adversaries but does not justify what the code attempts to achieve by special casing 'master' in the first place. It is not an improvement to literally adjust that inadequate comment to the new world order to just parrot what the code already says without explaining why it does so. /* * Anonymize the name used for the primary branch in this * repository, but reserve `ref0` for it, so that it can * be identified among other refs in the output. */ is the minimum I would expect before calling it an improvement. We could add It is often `main` for new repositories (and `master` for aged ones) and such well-known names may not need anonymizing, but it could be configured to use a secret word that the user may not want to reveal. at the end to explain the motivation behind anonymizing even more, if we wanted to. Now, "so that ..." part is totally a fabrication based on my best guess. I do not know what the original author was thinking when the decision to leave the master as-is was made. Thanks.
