Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement @{publish} shorthand

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 9, 2014, 18:20 UTC
Message-ID: <20140109182024.GA30970@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqeh4iavn2.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:42:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> > This patch introduces the <branch>@{publish} shorthand (or
> > "@{pu}" to be even shorter). It refers to the tracking
> 
> If @{u} can already be used for upstream, why not allow @{p} but
> require two letters @{pu}?  Just being curious---I am not advocating
> strongly for a shorter short-hand.
> 
> Or is @{p} already taken by something and my memory is not
> functioning well?

It is my brain that was not functioning well. I somehow thought "well, @{u} is already taken, so we must use "@{pu}". Which of course makes no sense, unless you are middle-endian. :)

We may want to be cautious about giving up a short-and-sweet single-letter, though, until the feature has proved itself. We could also teach upstream_mark and friends to match unambiguous prefixes (so "@{u}, "@{up}", "@{upst}", etc). That means "@{p}" would work immediately, but scripts should use "@{publish}" for future-proofing.

-Peff