Hi Junio, On Fri, 12 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. True. Sorry about forgetting that when adjusting the code comment. In my defense, I am/was much more worried about transmogrifying the patch series to reflect the separation between `init.defaultBranch` and `core.mainBranch` and the associated fall-out (I highly doubt that the range-diff between v1 and v2 will be useful...). > 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. > */ That is indeed an improvement, thank you so much. > 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. Maybe we add that to the comment in the patch that teaches `fast-export` about `core.mainBranch`? Yeah, I think I like that idea best. > 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. This comment comes from a8722750985 (teach fast-export an --anonymize option, 2014-08-27), and I agree that there is no explicit explanation why the main branch is special-cased. However, I think that your guess is a good one: it might be an interesting aspect to identify the commits from the main branch, without necessarily needing to know the actual name of said branch, e.g. to reproduce a reported issue. Ciao, Dscho
