Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 04/26/2014 01:19 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:50:26PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > [...]
> >> * fc/publish-vs-upstream (2014-04-21) 8 commits
> >> - sha1_name: add support for @{publish} marks
> >> - sha1_name: simplify track finding
> >> - sha1_name: cleanup interpret_branch_name()
> >> - branch: display publish branch
> >> - push: add --set-publish option
> >> - branch: add --set-publish-to option
> >> - Add concept of 'publish' branch
> >> - t5516 (fetch-push): fix test restoration
> >>
> >> Add branch@{publish}; it seems that this is somewhat different from
> >> Ram and Peff started working on. There were many discussion
> >> messages going back and forth but it does not appear that the
> >> design issues have been worked out among participants yet.
> >
> > [...]
> > As for the patches themselves, I have not reviewed them carefully, and
> > would prefer not to. As I mentioned before, though, I would prefer the
> > short "@{p}" not be taken for @{publish} until it has proven itself.
>
> Is it too late and/or impossible to think of a different name for either
> "push" or "publish" so that their single-letter abbreviations don't
> coincide?
I'd say given the fact that this has been in the works for a long long
tie and nobody has proposed a better name. Yes.
One reason I think @{p} makes sense for publish is:
% git push -u, @{u}, @{upstream}
% git push -p, @{p}, @{publish}
--
Felipe Contreras
--
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
