Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > So yes, I totally agree that triggering an interactive prompt by the empty > value is not really a good idea (nor a particularly intuitive behavior). Puzzled. Nobody talked about going interactive so far and I didn't suggest it---even though I think it is a cute idea to give a "what branch name do you want to use?" prompt, I do not think it is practical. I thought it was obvious, but the key to coming up with a name dynamically instead of using a fixed string is to derive from a cue the end user gives, not directly use what the end user gives. I do not think anybody in the discussion meant by "the <basename> thing" to literally use $(basename $(cwd)) output, but use it to derive a token that check-ref-format likes. As you may have already known when you wrote them, "My Documents" or the root directory case are red herring---it would be trivial to derive "MyDocuments" or "my-documents" for the former, and for the latter, it is totally OK for the deriving rule to come up with any of "unnamed", "initial", etc. Most of the thing you said in the message I am responding to did not make much sense to me. Perhaps you can retry after reading the message you are responding to again? Thanks.
