Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I guess something like the patch below works, but I wonder if there is a
> less-horrible way to accomplish the same thing.
I suspect that a less-horrible would be a lot more intrusive. It
would go like "interpret-branch-name only gives local branch name,
and when it does not show it, the callers that know they do not
necessarily need local branch name would call other at-mark things".
As you pointed out with the @{upstream} that potentially point at a
local branch, it will quickly get more involved, I would think, and
I tend to think that this patch of yours is probably the least evil
one among possible solutions.
Perhaps with s/not_in_refs_heads/not_a_branch_name/ (or swapping
polarity, "is_a_branch_name"), the resulting code may not be too
hard to read?
Thanks.