From: Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:28:18 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Convenient support of remote branches in git-checkout
Message-ID: <200611071128.18831.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vvels6lf4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 03:27, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> remotes/origin/next as "next's upstream".  While we are on
> 'next' branch, we might want to refer to "HEAD's upstream".
> 
> I am not sure what the syntax for that should be, though.
> Perhaps "HEAD@upstream"?

I remember an idea floating around was to use a virtual
branch "ORIGIN" which always maps to the upstream of the current
branch.
 
> Unlike the regular extended sha1 expression modifiers such as
> name~n, name^n, and name^{type}, it does not work with arbitrary
> object name; it can only work with a refname.  Which is similar
> to the '@{time}' notation we added when we started using
> ref-log.  Strictly speaking these should not belong to the sha1
> naming layer, but we can have them anyway for the user's
> convenience.

Yes, this makes sense. Branch relations like "upstream" is a
local configuration issue, similar to reflogs.

I vote for "HEAD@up", short form "@up".