From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 22:52:39 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] object-name: accept @{p} as short for @{push} Message-ID: In-Reply-To: "Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Harald Nordgren > > 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.