On Jul 8, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:03:46AM -0400, Brian Gernhardt wrote:
I personally expected @{1} to be identical to HEAD@{1}. Since
omitting a
ref usually refers to HEAD, why shouldn't omitting it when
referring to
the reflogs mean the HEAD log? The definition of @{1} is useful
since
there's no other easy way to get "current branch's reflog", but I
think
it's non-obvious. (Since HEAD@{1} is something completely
different, I
think the only other way to refer to @{1} is $(git symbolic-
ref)@{1}.)
FYI, there was much discussion about this exact point:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/38379
(I don't know that it has that much bearing on the current discussion,
but since I went to the trouble of digging it up, I thought you might
find it useful).
Oh, it is useful. And, thinking about it, I agree completely. The
syntax isn't immediately obvious, but clear and useful. The need to
distinguish between HEAD@{} and $branch@{} is apparent after a
moment's reflection, and the chosen solution is fairly obvious at that
point. I just never took that moment in my day-to-day working with git.
There's even documentation for it that is clear and understandable.
If I was a new user to git, I would have read the documentation and
found it. Having used git for a while, I don't bother to look things
up and instead try to alter git to match my three years of
experience. ;-)
That said, I still want clear and consistent semantics for ORIG_HEAD.
And since that now (IMNSHO) exists in next, I'm happy.
~~ Brian
--
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
