Re: [PATCH 0/2] @{u} updates

> Earlier I wondered if the approach Dscho's patch takes to teach the new
> @{upstream} syntax to substitute_branch_name() (hence dwim_ref()) without
> teaching it to interpret_branch_name() (hence strbuf_branchname()) was a
> bad idea.  I thought about this a bit more; there are some downsides for
> not doing so.
> 
> The first patch adds a handful of tests that show why strbuf_branchname()
> callers may also want to learn about the new syntax.  The second patch
> moves the logic to interpret_branch_name() to make them happier.