Hi Junio & Peff, On Wed, 16 Sep 2020, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:28:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > I'm on the fence on whether this matters. It's a temporary > > > inconsistency, assuming we eventually move to "main" as the default. > > > We _could_ push this change off to that patch, too, but it does make > > > it more noisy. > > > > Another way to handle this is perhaps to teach test-lib.sh a way to > > tell it that we want to live in the world where the initial default > > branch name is 'main' and use that at the beginning of these select > > test scripts like t3200. Then we can do three related things in a > > single patch to t3200, which are: > > > > - Declare that any "git init" in this test (including the initial > > one) uses 'main' as the default branch name; > > > > - rename 'master' used in the test to 'main' > > > > - rename 'master2' used in the test to 'main2' > > > > and it would eliminate the awkwardness. > > > > The change to test-lib.sh would likely to use init.defaultBranch > > which also would be a good thing. > > Yeah, I'd be perfectly happy with that. I do want to introduce something like that in the patch series after the next one. However, in this instance, I think it makes more sense to use a separate name altogether. I settled for using `topic` instead of `main2`, and `new-topic` instead of `main3` locally. Ciao, Dscho
