Re: [PATCH v6] status: long status advice adapted to recent capabilities

From: Rudy Rigot <rudy.rigot@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2022, 15:54 UTC
Message-ID: <CANaDLWJM1VRivm8VLqxg+w8K-+49E0km6AgOzWzN9X=TgzaEiA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRPQ7bmG6+U+oQGGUFiSiHoMMpMk8FDJ7GMJvwCXifa9g@mail.gmail.com>

> 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!