Re: [RFC PATCH] object-name: add @{upstreamhead} shorthand

> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 11:42:38PM +0200, Bence Ferdinandy wrote:
>> But so the long story short here is that for
>> (origin|upstream)/(master|main|trunk) we can already have agnostic code with
>> HEAD for the second part and with a patch like this we could have agnostic code
>> for the whole thing.
>
> I'm hesitant to pick this up because of what is said in this paragraph.
> When you write "(master|main|trunk)", I think you're really spelling
> "HEAD". And it's fine to write HEAD in a script when you want to resolve
> something to master/main/trunk/etc. without caring which and instead
> delegating that to whatever the remote HEAD is.
>
> But determining the upstream of a branch is already easy to do as Peff
> points out downthread. So this seems like a band-aid for scripts that do
> not care to perform such a resolution themselves.