Re: [PATCH 3/5] t3200: avoid variations of the `master` branch name
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Sep 16, 2020, 21:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20200916211150.GA617237@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <2f1d0a2df41f567bc1a8bc446c26e1cb8b6dc36c.1600279853.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 06:10:51PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> > > To avoid branch names with a loaded history, we already started to avoid > using the name "master" in a couple instances. > > The `t3200-branch.sh` script uses variations of this name for branches > other than the default one. So let's change those names, as > "lowest-hanging fruits" in the effort to use more inclusive naming > throughout Git's source code.
A few of these are kind of odd after only this patch. E.g.:
Show 8 quoted lines
> -test_expect_success 'git branch -M master2 master2 should work when master is checked out' ' > +test_expect_success 'git branch -M main2 main2 should work when master is checked out' ' > git checkout master && > - git branch master2 && > - git branch -M master2 master2 > + git branch main2 && > + git branch -M main2 main2 > '
The point of "master2" is that it wasn't "master". But now "main2" is kind of a weird name, because it has a "2" but isn't related to anything. If we eventually move the base branch name to "main", they'll line up again.
I'm on the fence on whether this matters. It's a temporary inconsistency, assuming we eventually move to "main" as the default. We _could_ push this change off to that patch, too, but it does make it more noisy.
But it may be that the connection to "master" here is not all that important in the first place. And so perhaps an even better patch (both at this stage and in the long run) is to give it a more descriptive name. If all of these could just be "branch2", "branch3", etc, then that alone would be better than "master2", IMHO. I'm not sure if the shared "ma" prefix matters, though (I know in some tests it does because we're testing glob matching).
Again, I'm on the fence whether this is exploring too deeply. It's an opportunity to improve the tests while we're changing them. But at the same time, I doubt anybody cares too much overall, so it feels a bit like make-work.
-Peff