Hi,
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> 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}.
And I gave answer (c): I do not remember.
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