Re: [PATCH] object-name: accept @{p} as short for @{push}

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 1, 2026, 03:29 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1paa85e9.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbj9e8kb3.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> [Footnote]
>
>  * https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=gmane:268185 would have given us
>    a good way to find what thread Peff was referring to in the cover
>    letter of v3 iteration:
>
>    https://lore.kernel.org/git/20150521044429.GA5857@peff.net/
>
>    Unfortunately, we are getting 502 back X-<.

Well, I remembered that gmane still offers nntp clients ;-)

We can visit nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.version-control.git/ and ask for article #268185 to learn that the thread begins with the message <20150501224414.GA25551@peff.net>.

That's 12-patch series of v2 that can be seen at lore:

https://lore.kernel.org/git/20150501224414.GA25551@peff.net/

And then it also links back to a different thread

<1389126588-3663-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com>

that started <branch>@{publish} notation. In one of the messages in the discussion thread, I see I was asking

    If @{u} can already be used for upstream, why not allow @{p} but
    require two letters @{pu}?  Just being curious---I am not
    advocating strongly for a shorter short-hand.

The thread also has a fairly well written summary of what symmetric and triangular workflows are, and how Git 2.0 would give users choice to select among three simplest models. The thread was apparently from pre Git 2.0 days.