Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes:

> To emphasize what we're testing in @{1}@{u}, document that @{0}@{0} is
> also nonsense.  This makes it clear that @{<n>} does not resolve to a
> ref whose upstream we can determine with @{u}/ reflog we can dig with
> @{0}.
> Since HEAD is implicit in @{},...

Just making sure.  HEAD@{$n} and @{$n} for non-negative $n mean
totally different things.  @{0} and HEAD@{0} are almost always the
same, and @{1} and HEAD@{1} may often happen to be the same, but as
a blanket statement, I find "Since HEAD is implicit in @{}" very

As you and Felipe seem to be aiming for the same "Let's allow users
to say '@' when they mean HEAD", I'll let you two figure the best
approach out.

One productive way forward might be to come up with a common test
script pieces to document what constructs that spell @ in place of
HEAD should be supported, and much more importantly, what constructs
that happen to have @ in them should not mistakenly trigger the new

Have fun ;-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to