Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> So, after thinking about it a bit more, I do not think I agree with
> the NEEDSWORK comment. I can buy "@", but not an arbitrary revision
> name that happens to point at the same commit as HEAD.
One more thing is it might make sense, if we were to allow more than
the literal string "HEAD", is to include the name of the current
branch (e.g., if "git symbolic-ref HEAD" says "refs/heads/main",
then "main") to the set of tokens that the user may use when they
mean to refer to "HEAD". Unlike "newbranch" they are not currently
on, if they know what branch they are on and they know that is what
HEAD refers to, so the likelihood of them wanting to see the command
behave (i.e. the direction of the patch to be selected and the
messages) the same way may be much higher, I would suspect.
But still, the sudden reversal of the direction of the patches may
bring unexpected confusions to uses. I dunno.
> In other
> words, I may be persuaded to thinking into it is a good idea to add:
>
> static inline int user_means_HEAD(const char *a)
> {
> return !strcmp(a, "HEAD") || !strcmp(a, "@");
> }
>
> and replace "!strcmp(rev, "HEAD")" with "user_means_HEAD(rev)", but
> I would not go any further than that.
>
> Thanks.
