On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 12:16:53PM +0000, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> Add @{p} as a shorthand for @{push} for consistency with the @{u}
>> shorthand for @{upstream}.
>>
>> This wasn't added when @{push} was introduced in commit
>> adfe5d0434 ("sha1_name: implement @{push} shorthand", 2015-05-21), but
>> it can be added without any ambiguity and saves the user some typing.
>
> It _can_ be added, but it was intentionally avoided at the time because
> there was discussion of adding other p-words, including:
>
> - @{pull} as a synonym for @{upstream} (and to better match @{push})
>
> - @{publish}, which was some similar-ish system that was based on
> per-branch config, but the patches were never merged.
>
> It's been a few years with neither of those things happening, so in a
> sense it may be safe to add it now. OTOH, if users are not clamoring for
> @{p} and it is just being added "because we can", maybe that is not a
> good reason.
Yeah let's just drop this.
>> -'<branchname>@\{push\}', e.g. 'master@\{push\}', '@\{push\}'::
>> - The suffix '@\{push}' reports the branch "where we would push to" if
>> +'<branchname>@\{push\}', e.g. 'master@\{push\}', '@\{p\}'::
>> + The suffix '@\{push}' (short form '@\{push}') reports the branch "where we would push to" if
>
> Did you mean to say "short form '@\{p}'"?
Yup, my mistake.