From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248D41F4B4 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 22:21:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731029AbgI3WVM (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:21:12 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:53783 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727210AbgI3WVK (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:21:10 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED53102A12; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:21:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=+5K6FxhXGVx2UNU1l1MCjf451yI=; b=TLVx+I BfUmOSHzkC4VoodinDk7u7qJnfivbBCKpGkPKczABM97WZEDM9UmjxbBb1CevhE+ ljI/59aV6Ghk5eENZecgxewvDALPg97phV7h641+/81NQijmBMuAgSOBIgje4B4R flzDtTgs9H/mrqv6NeloynN0j6tlsZmTtwEMc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=fGaXPuVojoC8cN8+hw+l/mE0AYhYuQfe y+0qCxE0GQJEahnICryEPobI5BzEcS7aa9WJTXeJFXWaRNpEh5X4onoDGAoXBO/O cbBFBYklwmuiDRztuuid74QJ18fFk54Vd50TOhP6gkgmG0An6YzeHFgxxBXc7zir /W0m6IcCaiY= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275E9102A11; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:21:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C22A102A10; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:21:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Inclusive naming, part II References: Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:21:02 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget's message of "Sat, 26 Sep 2020 21:04:17 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3A9AED46-036B-11EB-B363-F0EA2EB3C613-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" writes: > This patch series represents the logical next step on the journey begun with > introducing init.defaultBranch: in these patches, we avoid a couple > unnecessary mentions of the branch name "master". > > This patch series does not try to change the default branch name, although I > have that patch series ready to go. You can see the overall idea here: > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/655. Concretely, I plan on > submitting three more patch series after this one: > > 1. a relatively small patch series to avoid using the branch name main in > the test suite. This is necessary because my plan is to change the > default branch name to that name, therefore it cannot be used as the > name of a topic branch any longer. > 2. a relatively large patch series (currently consisting of 18 patches) to > change the default branch name to main. Most of the patches provide > non-trivial (read: non-scriptable) adjustments to the test suite in an > incremental fashion, with a big patch toward the end that reflects a > fully-automated search-and-replace of all the trivial cases. > 3. a very small patch series with fall-out patches that are not necessary > to pass the test suite, but are still required to complete the rename > (adjusted code comment, file rename). > > (Note: I am still debating whether I should move one or two patches from the > second to the third patch series) > > Changes since v2: > > * Extended the idea of using topic instead of main to patch 4/5. > * Explained in the commit message of patch 5/5 why we cannot use topic > instead of main here. This round hasn't seen any new comments. I quickly scanned them one more time, and it seems to be in good shape. Shall we merge it down to 'next'? Thanks.