From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 18:53:39 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] t1508 (at-combinations): more tests; document failures
Message-ID: <7va9oe5y6k.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1367425235-14998-2-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

> To emphasize what we're testing in @{1}@{u}, document that @{0}@{0} is
> also nonsense.  This makes it clear that @{<n>} does not resolve to a
> ref whose upstream we can determine with @{u}/ reflog we can dig with
> @{0}.
>
> Since HEAD is implicit in @{},...

Just making sure.  HEAD@{$n} and @{$n} for non-negative $n mean
totally different things.  @{0} and HEAD@{0} are almost always the
same, and @{1} and HEAD@{1} may often happen to be the same, but as
a blanket statement, I find "Since HEAD is implicit in @{}" very
misleading.

As you and Felipe seem to be aiming for the same "Let's allow users
to say '@' when they mean HEAD", I'll let you two figure the best
approach out.

One productive way forward might be to come up with a common test
script pieces to document what constructs that spell @ in place of
HEAD should be supported, and much more importantly, what constructs
that happen to have @ in them should not mistakenly trigger the new
machinery.

Have fun ;-)