Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> So you meant to say that substitute_branch_name() calls
> interpret_branch_name(), so the change should be in the latter. (This is
> supposed to be the summary of your 4 paragraphs.)
Not quite. What I was asking was:
*PROVIDED* *IF* you wanted to keep the same semantics between
them, then you would have patched i-b-n, but you didn't. Was there
a reason callers of s-b-n should know about @{u} but callers of i-b-n
shouldn't?
Expected answer was either:
(a) Codepath X that uses i-b-n shouldn't interpret @{upstream} as
a symbolic name given by the user, but it should treat it as a
mere SHA-1 expression instead for *this and that* reason.
Otherwise we will see *this* breakage when the user does
*that*. That is why i-b-n doesn't know about the new syntax;
or
(b) It was a thinko; all codepaths that use i-b-n should know the
new syntax as they _are_ interested in learning the symbolic
name when the user gives @{upstream}.
--
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