Re: Avoiding 'master' nomenclature

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 30, 2020, 00:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20200730005243.GD2996059@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgdKi+Mhq3TKVKLKTm0RBxjHpg7C2co8xRnvPuV5sgJUw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 05:44:00PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 5:29 PM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> >
> > This is an interesting middle ground. I'm a little iffy on it just
> > because it complicates the very simple case of "should I mention the
> > destination branch",
> 
> No, you're absolutely right. After sending that message I went and
> looked at how nasty it would be, and it's not worth it.
> 
> If we were doing perl or shell or whatever (like the original scripts
> were), it would have been trivial. But as things are now, I'll retract
> that idea as being overly complicated.

Heh. For what it's worth, I wrote a paragraph that started with "if we were doing this in perl..." in my response but deleted it. So I think we are very much on the same page. :)

> It would solve my "rewrite repo name" thing, but I've solved that with
> a hook, and it's a bit hacky, but it's not horrendous or wrong. As you
> say, hooks are for special cases, and that hostname rewriting I do is
> very much a special case.

There might be room for an easy feature there, too. If we're given url A on the command line and then we convert it to B with insteadOf, it's not clear to me which one is the thing we should write into the merge message. (I'd think "A", but it sounds from your example that we write "B"). So possibly reversing that behavior, or adding an option to do so, would help. Or providing an equivalent of insteadOf that applies to writing URLs publicly.

And while it's definitely a special case, I suspect it may be one that other folks have, too (e.g., mentioning https:// URLs is probably more friendly than ssh for most people).

-Peff