Re: default behaviour for `gitmerge` (no arguments)

>> What I was asking was:
>> 
>> 	*PROVIDED* *IF* you wanted to keep the same semantics between
>>          them, then you would have patched i-b-n, but you didn't.  Was there
>>          a reason callers of s-b-n should know about @{u} but callers of i-b-n
>> 	shouldn't?
>> 
>> Expected answer was either:
>> 
>> 	(a) Codepath X that uses i-b-n shouldn't interpret @{upstream} as
>>             a symbolic name given by the user, but it should treat it as a
>>             mere SHA-1 expression instead for *this and that* reason.
>>             Otherwise we will see *this* breakage when the user does
>>             *that*.  That is why i-b-n doesn't know about the new syntax;
>>             or
>> 
>> 	(b) It was a thinko; all codepaths that use i-b-n should know the
>>             new syntax as they _are_ interested in learning the symbolic
>>             name when the user gives @{upstream}.
>
> And I gave answer (c): I do not remember.