On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> What would help in figuring out how to do that is, instead of more
> reminders of how stupid we are, some more information about what would
> be useful for you (both directly in your use of git and indirectly in
> the history you would like to have available to you for pulling).
I've sent the patch. It's "tested" only in the sense that the
test-suite continues to work, but it's really just a revert together
with replacing "master" with using git_default_branch_name() instead.
I would have thought the old behavior was self-explanatory: don't
bother saying that you're merging into the default branch, because the
default branch name is - wait for it - not interesting.
And yes, I was annoyed by this, and sorry for calling it stupid.
But I was annoyed by this because it took me much too long to notice
that my merge messages are now unnecessarily ugly for the last two
days, for a _very_ bad reason.
And I'm annoyed because I agree that "master" isn't a great default
name, and I treat it as historical. So then making that
less-than-great name more visible in the history is actually really
sad, in addition to being just ugly.
Linus
