From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:29:50 GMT
Subject: Re: tracking branch for a rebase
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0909071126040.8306@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090907084324.GB17997@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Jeff King wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 10:05:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > 	ref@{number}	-- nth reflog entry
> >         ref@{time}	-- ref back then
> > 	@{-number}	-- nth branch switching
> > 
> > So perhaps ref@{upstream}, or any string that is not a number and cannot
> > be time, can trigger the magic operation on the ref with ref@{magic}
> > syntax?
> 
> I think using @{} is a reasonable extension format.

Sorry to enter this thread that late, but I did not realize that it 
touches my %<branch> work.

Your proposal leads to something like "master@{upstream}@{2.days.ago}", 
which looks ugly.  And it is much more to type.

I still think that it is not too-much asked for to require the 
"refs/heads/" prefix if somebody starts her branch names with "%".

Or did I miss something (as I do not have time to read long mails these 
days, I tend to read only the short, to-the-point ones; I allowed myself 
to only skim over the rest of your mail)?

Ciao,
Dscho