On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:42:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > This patch introduces the <branch>@{publish} shorthand (or
> > "@{pu}" to be even shorter). It refers to the tracking
>
> If @{u} can already be used for upstream, why not allow @{p} but
> require two letters @{pu}? Just being curious---I am not advocating
> strongly for a shorter short-hand.
>
> Or is @{p} already taken by something and my memory is not
> functioning well?
It is my brain that was not functioning well. I somehow thought "well,
@{u} is already taken, so we must use "@{pu}". Which of course makes no
sense, unless you are middle-endian. :)
We may want to be cautious about giving up a short-and-sweet
single-letter, though, until the feature has proved itself. We could
also teach upstream_mark and friends to match unambiguous prefixes (so
"@{u}, "@{up}", "@{upst}", etc). That means "@{p}" would work
immediately, but scripts should use "@{publish}" for future-proofing.
-Peff
--
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