Re: tracking branch for a rebase

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Sep 7, 2009, 09:53 UTC
Message-ID: <4AA4D81A.1030203@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0909071126040.8306@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>

Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 07.09.2009 11:29:

Show 28 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Jeff King wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 10:05:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> 	ref@{number}	-- nth reflog entry
>>>         ref@{time}	-- ref back then
>>> 	@{-number}	-- nth branch switching
>>>
>>> So perhaps ref@{upstream}, or any string that is not a number and cannot
>>> be time, can trigger the magic operation on the ref with ref@{magic}
>>> syntax?
>>
>> 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 "%".
> 
> Or did I miss something (as I do not have time to read long mails these 
> days, I tend to read only the short, to-the-point ones; I allowed myself 
> to only skim over the rest of your mail)?

Solution needs to be:
- practical (short, clear)
- not too brutal (on existing users of legal "exotic" refnames)
- extensible (for later uses)

Michael 152 chars for Dscho :)