Hi Junio, On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. The interactive prompt was what I understood your "a notation that asks for the basename behaviour" comment. The "ask" was what tripped me up, I always interpret that as interactive. But now that I re-read it, I understand that you had not thought that far yet. > 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. The more magic you introduce, the less intuitive the whole thing gets, and the more disruptive the change. > 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? Could you be a bit more specific? Was it the "I already use the empty string to force a fall-back, it cannot also mean something else" that did not make sense? Or my comment that special-casing values that start with a colon would look saner to me? Or the comment about the basename in a root directory? Or referencing the SFC statement that we want to minimize disruption? Or my stated preference to go with `main` in order to fulfill that promise of minimizing the disruption to users? Or my current plan to introduce an `advise()` call when running `git init` that tells users that the fall-back for `init.defaultBranch` will change soon and that users are encouraged to configure it if they care about keeping the current fall-back? Or that all of this needs to be done with care? The message you refer to might not have been the best example of clear communication, but it hardly deserved _that_ response. Ciao, Dscho
