Hi,
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I find a prefix % not descriptive enough (besides being ugly); if it were
> "^branch", as some people said, it would probably have matched its meaning
> "up", but that notation is already taken for "uninteresting".
How about ^^branch? *ducks*
Seriously again, I think that ^{tracking} (with shorthand ^t, maybe) is
not too shabby an option. The point is: if we make this unattractive
enough by requiring a lot of typing, we will never get to the point where
it is popular enough to make a shorthand: it just will not be used at all.
> When I say there is only one kind of magic notation for refs, I am
> primarily talking about the end-user perception. @{time}, @{number} and
> @{-number} all do their magic using the reflog, but that is about _how_
> they do what they do. End-user perception begins with _what_ they do, and
> at that level, the magic consistently works on refs and different genie is
> summoned depending on what is inside {}.
>
> The @{upstream} thing won't be using reflog to do its job, but that is
> about _how_ it is implemented, and the end users don't care.
Ah, I get what you're saying. @{2.days.ago} says something about this
branch locally, but @{upstream} says something about this branch remotely
(well, our local cache). From that view point, it makes sense.
But my point stands: @{upstream} is too awkward to type. Let's have _at
least_ a shortcut '@{up}'.
Ciao,
Dscho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html