From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 17:07:36 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #08; Fri, 25)
Message-ID: <536d0b58b3803_693d7fd30c5e@nysa.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <536D080C.7030402@alum.mit.edu>

Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 04/26/2014 01:19 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:50:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > [...]
> >> * fc/publish-vs-upstream (2014-04-21) 8 commits
> >>  - sha1_name: add support for @{publish} marks
> >>  - sha1_name: simplify track finding
> >>  - sha1_name: cleanup interpret_branch_name()
> >>  - branch: display publish branch
> >>  - push: add --set-publish option
> >>  - branch: add --set-publish-to option
> >>  - Add concept of 'publish' branch
> >>  - t5516 (fetch-push): fix test restoration
> >>
> >>  Add branch@{publish}; it seems that this is somewhat different from
> >>  Ram and Peff started working on.  There were many discussion
> >>  messages going back and forth but it does not appear that the
> >>  design issues have been worked out among participants yet.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 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.
> 
> Is it too late and/or impossible to think of a different name for either
> "push" or "publish" so that their single-letter abbreviations don't
> coincide?

I'd say given the fact that this has been in the works for a long long
tie and nobody has proposed a better name. Yes.

One reason I think @{p} makes sense for publish is:

  % git push -u, @{u}, @{upstream}
  % git push -p, @{p}, @{publish}

-- 
Felipe Contreras