> That said, this is minor, and I'm not keen on eating up more of your > time or reviewer time, so I doubt this is worth a reroll. Eh, there's nothing wrong with striving for perfection. Lemme do one more reroll... > So, it's not apparent > why you need to create a specially-named branch here rather than > simply accepting the default branch name. The reason was that it failed some CI pipelines before I did this, with some pipelines printing "main" instead of "master" into the git status output. I fixed it right away, so I don't know if it was a CI glitch that day or if it would still be the same running it now. I could have redacted the branch name away from the output, but it seemed simpler and more readable to just set the branch name in stone for all pipelines. > an alternative would have been to override the default branch name at the > top of the script: Oh, this seems like a better way to do what I was trying to do. I'll change it now. > we have a test_unconfig() function I'll use that. New patch coming!
