@CAMOBAP thank you for the PR.

The default branch of the remote seems like it should be a property of a Remote object.

If it were, I would like to get the remote's default branch by doing this:
Git.open(working_dir).remote(remote_name).default_branch

or:
Git.open(working_dir).current_branch.remote.default_branch

or (as a bonus) without having to have a local repository:
Git.remote_default_branch(repository)

What do you think of this design?

@jcouball sounds reasonable to me

@CAMOBAP thank you for the PR.

The default branch of the remote seems like it should be a property of a Remote object.

If it were, I would like to get the remote's default branch by doing this: Git.open(working_dir).remote(remote_name).default_branch

or: Git.open(working_dir).current_branch.remote.default_branch

or (as a bonus) without having to have a local repository: Git.remote_default_branch(repository)

What do you think of this design?

@jcouball done

Very useful feature indeed, was going to mention the taint error for YARDoc but it looks like @jcouball was a few steps ahead there:

lsegal/yard@7dca12c

@CAMOBAP Git.remote_default_branch(repository) isn't implemented as I had intended. Pardon if I wasn't clear before. My intention was that you would give it a repository (like Git.clone) however:

$ irb -I lib
2.7.5 :001 > require 'git'
 => true 
2.7.5 :002 > Git.remote_default_branch('https://github.com/ruby-git/ruby-git')
Traceback (most recent call last):
        1: from /Users/couballj/SynologyDrive/Documents/Projects/ruby-git-clean/https:/github.com/ruby-git/ruby-git
ArgumentError (path does not exist)
2.7.5 :003 > 

I have this implemented with tests, so if you remove Git.remote_default_branch and it's test from this PR, I accept it and then follow with a separate PR for that.

2.7.5 :002 > Git.remote_default_branch('https://github.com/ruby-git/ruby-git')
 => "master" 
2.7.5 :003 > Git.remote_default_branch('https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core')
 => "main" 

Also, it seems like Lib#branch_default should be named Lib#default_branch... if you agree, can you rename it?

@CAMOBAP and @baweaver what do you think about #571 as a replacement for this PR's implementation of Git.remote_default_branch?

@CAMOBAP and @baweaver what do you think about #571 as a replacement for this PR's implementation of Git.remote_default_branch?

To me #571 looks more elegant, so I'm totally ok if my PR will be rejected in favor of #571

Closing this PR in favor of #571