On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 4:57 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes: > > - The branch name that is somewhat meaningful to the creator of the git > > repo. > > > > I have at least two repos where I wound up doing this by hand. So at > > least for me it is something I am doing anyway. > > Direct "other side" of the coin is that the name meaningful to the > creator may be different from project to project, so those who want > to try peeking projects that are so far unknown to them will have to > guess what that meaningful thing is. When visiting a random github > repository and presented by 47 different branches, it would be more > helpful for such a visitor to have a reliable "this is likely to be > the primary integration branch" cue. Not having a convention is > worse than having a convention some folks may find suboptimal from > usability's point of view. But a convention is just that: a convention. If we already know "origin/HEAD" is very likely pointing to the integration branch, then why do we need to know what that branch is called in that particular project? Just refer to that branch as "origin/@", or just "origin". That would work for projects that follow the convention, and those who don't. Why does the tool need to care? Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
