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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 30, 2026, 22:52 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq7bk28i88.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <pull.2431.git.git.1790797186658.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

"Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
>
> Typing "git log @{p}.." fails with "unknown revision", even though
> "@{u}" works as the short form of "@{upstream}". Users who reach for
> the one letter spelling of the push destination by analogy get an
> error.

That's a weak justification. The same argument may lead to a different conclusion, i.e., we should remove @{u}, for example ;-)

As I wrote in my response to Ben Knoble, I dug the mailing list history, and I think it is a good thing to record in the log message of this change what we can learn from the history. Things that you should describe include

 - @{upstream} had @{u} from the beginning
 - @{push} did not
 - the reason we do not have corresponding @{p} is not because
   somebody gave a concrete reason why we shouldn't while the
   feature was being added.

The last one is, as Ben brought up, a very good thing to mention, as we can justify this change with "just for symmetry, add missing @{p}".

Queued.