From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:49:30 GMT
Subject: Re: default behaviour for `gitmerge` (no arguments)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1001132348570.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vpr5dn5vt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Hi,

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> 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.

Ciao,
Dscho