From: Brian Gernhardt <benji@silverinsanity.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:32:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [FIXED PATCH] Make rebase save ORIG_HEAD if changing current branch
Message-ID: <D66F511D-CDBE-4261-AA28-07ED73F6C593@silverinsanity.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080708042607.GC7186@sigill.intra.peff.net>


On Jul 8, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Jeff King wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:03:46AM -0400, Brian Gernhardt wrote:
>
>> I personally expected @{1} to be identical to HEAD@{1}.  Since  
>> omitting a
>> ref usually refers to HEAD, why shouldn't omitting it when  
>> referring to
>> the reflogs mean the HEAD log?  The definition of @{1} is useful  
>> since
>> there's no other easy way to get "current branch's reflog", but I  
>> think
>> it's non-obvious.  (Since HEAD@{1} is something completely  
>> different, I
>> think the only other way to refer to @{1} is $(git symbolic- 
>> ref)@{1}.)
>
> FYI, there was much discussion about this exact point:
>
>  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/38379
>
> (I don't know that it has that much bearing on the current discussion,
> but since I went to the trouble of digging it up, I thought you might
> find it useful).

Oh, it is useful.  And, thinking about it, I agree completely.  The  
syntax isn't immediately obvious, but clear and useful.  The need to  
distinguish between HEAD@{} and $branch@{} is apparent after a  
moment's reflection, and the chosen solution is fairly obvious at that  
point.  I just never took that moment in my day-to-day working with git.

There's even documentation for it that is clear and understandable.   
If I was a new user to git, I would have read the documentation and  
found it.  Having used git for a while, I don't bother to look things  
up and instead try to alter git to match my three years of  
experience.  ;-)

That said, I still want clear and consistent semantics for ORIG_HEAD.   
And since that now (IMNSHO) exists in next, I'm happy.

~~ Brian