Jeff King <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:39:37PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > >> This is a bug. If the destination side of a refspec is omitted, and the >> source side resolves to a ref starting with "refs/heads/" or >> "refs/tags/" (which I expect it does here), then that ref is used as the >> destination. >> >> I submitted a patch at [0], but it was decided not to pick it up. If >> Junio and the list decide that it's wanted, I'm happy to resend or >> revise and resend. >> >> [0] >> https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/ > > I see I was cc'd on that original, but I don't remember ever reading it. > It seems like a sane enough idea to me.
I see I was also on the cc list; I am not sure what I thought about the patch (i.e. implementation, not the desire to use '@' in the context in place for "HEAD") back then. Now I read it with everything I thought forgotten, I see two potential issues: - Any error message downstream will mention "HEAD" and there won't be a trace of it originally being an "@" sign. It may not be a problem, especially for those who _KNOW_ that they should be typing HEAD but can type "@" instead, but I am not sure what to do those who do not know much about "HEAD" and start from "@" (by the way, it is one reason why I do not like encouraging "@", especially in introductory text). - The code should update llen to 4; right now the remainder of the function does not use the variable in a way that the discrepancy of replacing "@" with "HEAD" without updating llen matters, but relying on the shape of the code that happens to exist right now is a bad code hygiene. Other than that, the patch looks sensible to me. > Although I did notice that you mentioned there: > >> I probably type "git push upstream HEAD" from five to thirty times a >> day > > I find I do that rarely, because I have: > > [push] > default = current > > and in a triangular workflow, I have: > > [remote] > pushDefault = upstream > > So "git push" without arguments typically does the same thing for me. > > Not an argument against your patch, but just something you might find > useful. That's a helpful tangent. Thanks.
