Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> The "other" stuff could sometimes be useful, I guess. It's not _always_
> wrong to do:
>
> git branch -f @{upstream} foo
>
> It depends on what your @{upstream} resolves to. Switching to just using
> interpret_nth_prior_checkout() would break the case when it resolves to
> a local branch. I'm not sure if we're OK with that or not. If we want to
> keep all the existing cases working, I think we need something like the
> "not_in_refs_heads" patch I posted elsewhere.
I haven't seen that patch, but yes, telling the caller if the
returned value is meant to be used inside refs/heads/ is the right
approach and makes it possible for "@{upstream}" (and just "@") to
be handled sensibly in "git branch -m @{that at-mark thing}".