From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 04:25:21 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #08; Fri, 25)
Message-ID: <20140426042521.GA5799@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <535b0db7e5e31_ba2148d310f4@nysa.notmuch>

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:36:55PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

> > As for the patches themselves, I have not reviewed them carefully, and
> > would prefer not to. As I mentioned before, though, I would prefer the
> > short "@{p}" not be taken for @{publish} until it has proven itself.
> 
> Presumably you want to save it for @{push}. While I'm not against to having
> just @{publish} for now, I'm farily certain most people would be using
> @{publish} and not @{push}, as that's what `git branch -v` would show, and it
> would be closely similar to @{upstream}. Therefore it would make sense to use
> @{p} for @{publish}

No, I do not think it would be a good idea for @{push}, either. If we
have two concepts so similarly named (and especially if we add @{pull},
which has also been mentioned), then I think having @{p} just adds to
confusion. So I would much rather wait and see.  It is very easy to add
@{p} later, but it is very hard to take it back once used.

-Peff