Re: [PATCH] object-name: accept @{p} as short for @{push}

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 30, 2026, 22:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20260930223906.GA763270@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbj9e8kb3.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 03:07:44PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> @{u} existed since the inception of @{upstream}, as we can see in
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20150331173740.GE18912@peff.net/ which
> is the first iteration of the patch set that added @{push}.  It is
> unclear what was said during the review of v2 [*] but in the review
> of v3 https://lore.kernel.org/git/20150521045233.GA26507@peff.net/,
> nobody questioned the asymmetry between @{upstream} having a
> short-and-sweet @{u} while @{push} lacked the corresponding @{p}.

I think you have to go back further. Another contributor proposed @{publish} with somewhat different semantics, and I requested that it not use @{p} to avoid confusion between the two. There was also some discussion of @{pull} (I think as an alias to @{upstream}) at the time, which would further increase the confusion.

See this what's cooking and the actual patch threads around that time:

  https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqoazpt45p.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com/

I don't remember what ultimately happened with the @{publish} series, but given the time-frame and the contributor, I can make some guesses.

I don't think either of those name conflicts are under current discussion, so I don't have any particular objection. Just noting the history.

Show 7 quoted lines

>  * https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=gmane:268185 would have given us
>    a good way to find what thread Peff was referring to in the cover
>    letter of v3 iteration:
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/git/20150521044429.GA5857@peff.net/
> 
>    Unfortunately, we are getting 502 back X-<.

I have a local archive, but the v2 thread is not enlightening. :)

-Peff