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.
That's fine. As long as we know it is (c) (your earlier response sounded
as if you were saying (b)), we know that there might be issues we need to
find and carefully look at before using this topic.
--
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