Re: [PATCH 00/28] Use main as default branch name

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 18, 2020, 00:51 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s39fuHfJ5Uuywh05+S+fTzdhOb3f6ma-oqkW2T5gTG9OQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqmtzf4j96.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:10 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

>
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > If we already know "origin/HEAD" is very likely pointing to the
> > integration branch, then why do we need to know what that branch is
> > called in that particular project?
> >
> > Just refer to that branch as "origin/@", or just "origin".
>
> "git merge origin" turns into "git merge origin/HEAD", I think, and
> we had it for quite some time.
>
> But repositories may not even have any origin to begin with.  The
> one I am typing this message in certainly does not.  And we need
> some fallback default when origin/HEAD cannot be used anyway, and
> that is where the convention comes in again.  You cannot escape from
> it, and ...

I did not say the convention can be escaped, I said the convention can be minimized.

Since apparently there's already support for "origin/HEAD", a lot of documentation can avoid the term "origin/master", and simply use "origin".

However, we need to make sure users have a properly set up "origin/HEAD", and at least in my case none of my remotes have set it up. Looking at the code, it seems:

  git clone URL test

Is different than:

  git init test
  git remote add origin URL
  git fetch origin
  git checkout -b $favorite origin

In the latter there is no origin/HEAD, and I don't see why that should be the case.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras