From: "Michael Haggerty" <>
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

I'd initially grated against the 'publish' name. I didn't feel as that what I'd be pushing would be publish-worthy in the sense that when a book is published it's also edited before release, unless vanity-published.

For a basic triangular flow where the user is simply using a remote server as a sort of backup (e.g. github) then I thought that "self" may a suitable name, though it does feel too much of a specific case.

Part of the problem is that the DVCS style is new so there isn't a good word for 'the other side of the river', that's neither upstream, nor downstream, but a ferry crossing to another safe harbour.

I'm now sort of OK with push and publish being the same thing.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to