Re: [PATCH] revisions: add @{default} shorthand for default branch

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 30, 2026, 21:56 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqpl6q69z8.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20260130205830.45806-1-haraldnordgren@gmail.com>

Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I pushed a WIP with some of these ideas now, not intended as the final
> thing.
>
>
> Harald

Meaning we should feel free to ignore v3 and possibly a few later versions, until we hear from you?

I was writing the following as v3 review, but I guess these are comments on a version not for public consumption, so ...

--- >8 ---

I'd rather not see you use "primary" for what init.defaultBranch specifies, which already has a good name, "default". If you are using a different concept, like:

 * learn the remote @{upstream} for the current branch (for
   "@{primary}") or the named branch (for "$name@{primary}"), and
   then

 * look at refs/remotes/$remote/HEAD

then I would appreciate a good name to call that (which is a concept that has no good name yet, as far as I can see) and "primary" might be a good name for that new concept.

And from what I read as _your_ use case in an earlier message, init.defaultBranch aka @{default} is not what you want 999/1, yet I think what the patch implements is still that one. Puzzled...