Re: tracking branch for a rebase

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 9, 2009, 10:45 UTC
Message-ID: <20090909104550.GA20108@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0909071126040.8306@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>

On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:29:50AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > I think using @{} is a reasonable extension format.
> 
> Sorry to enter this thread that late, but I did not realize that it 
> touches my %<branch> work.
> 
> Your proposal leads to something like "master@{upstream}@{2.days.ago}", 
> which looks ugly.  And it is much more to type.
> 
> I still think that it is not too-much asked for to require the 
> "refs/heads/" prefix if somebody starts her branch names with "%".

I don't have a problem with restricting branch names starting with "%". However, I do think "%.." is a bit ugly to read. And I am somewhat concerned that we are eating the last reasonable available meta-character for this feature, which will make things even harder next time somebody suggests a clever feature. Which is why the discussion turned to a generic extension syntax.

I wonder if it is worth adding @{upstream} now, which is fairly safe, letting it cook for a while, and then adding a "%" alias later after the concept has proved itself (and people say "I like this feature, but it really is too much to type").

-Peff