From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2026 07:05:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] object-name: accept @{p} as short for @{push}
Message-ID: <CAHwyqnV+63w6DcPm5ea0n8inqG_v4ujR2CiAbZr-h5SdZJsHOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7bk28i88.fsf@gitster.g>

> > From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
> >
> > Typing "git log @{p}.." fails with "unknown revision", even though
> > "@{u}" works as the short form of "@{upstream}". Users who reach for
> > the one letter spelling of the push destination by analogy get an
> > error.
>
> That's a weak justification.  The same argument may lead to a
> different conclusion, i.e., we should remove @{u}, for example ;-)
>
> As I wrote in my response to Ben Knoble, I dug the mailing list
> history, and I think it is a good thing to record in the log message
> of this change what we can learn from the history.  Things that you
> should describe include
>
>  - @{upstream} had @{u} from the beginning
>  - @{push} did not
>  - the reason we do not have corresponding @{p} is not because
>    somebody gave a concrete reason why we shouldn't while the
>    feature was being added.
>
> The last one is, as Ben brought up, a very good thing to mention, as
> we can justify this change with "just for symmetry, add missing @{p}".

Thanks, I'll take a look!


Harald