On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
We probably should fix those, but that is orthogonal to the '@' shortcut.
We can have the '@' shortcut *today*, with minimal changes to the code
and the documentation, in a limited and
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:10 AM, David Aguilar dav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
We probably should fix those, but that is orthogonal to the '@' shortcut.
We can have the '@' shortcut *today*, with
Felipe Contreras wrote:
[...]
Yes, I'm working on a re-roll.
Moreover, the symbolic-ref 'HEAD' is quite special, it's mentioned
everywhere in the documentation, and the code has special cases for
it. It's not reasonable to expect all relevant places to be updated
for this functionality, and
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
[...]
Yes, I'm working on a re-roll.
Moreover, the symbolic-ref 'HEAD' is quite special, it's mentioned
everywhere in the documentation, and the code has special cases for
it. It's not
Felipe Contreras wrote:
But HEAD is special, @ is not. HEAD is documented, @ is not.
Your point being? That we should document @? Yes, I agree.
Where is it documented that @ points to HEAD? Where is it documented
that 'branch -u foo @' would replace @ with HEAD?
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
[...]
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that my implementation is Correct and
Final. I will be more thorough in my re-roll about justifying my
changes.
What I am saying is that we should fix symbolic refs, and that @
should be implemented at the ref-level to maximize
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
But HEAD is special, @ is not. HEAD is documented, @ is not.
Your point being? That we should document @? Yes, I agree.
Where?
Where is it documented that @ points to HEAD? Where is it
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Your approach can NOT be documented.
Ah, I missed that. The explanation I was looking for is:
HEAD has been special right from the start, and we cannot elevate
anything else to its status now.
Thanks. And sorry it took me so long.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras wrote:
Your approach can NOT be documented.
Ah, I missed that. The explanation I was looking for is:
HEAD has been special right from the start, and we cannot elevate
anything else to its
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
HEAD has been special right from the start, and we cannot elevate
anything else to its status now.
As to why I agree with you: I audited the callers of branch_get() and
found out there are some things that cannot be fixed just by fixing
branch_get():
For instance,
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
artag...@gmail.com wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
HEAD has been special right from the start, and we cannot elevate
anything else to its status now.
As to why I agree with you: I audited the callers of branch_get() and
found out there
Felipe Contreras wrote:
We probably should fix those, but that is orthogonal to the '@' shortcut.
We can have the '@' shortcut *today*, with minimal changes to the code
and the documentation, in a limited and understood scope, with no
surprises.
We can fix the symbolic ref stuff slowly,
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
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Just making sure. HEAD@{$n} and @{$n} for non-negative $n mean
totally different things. @{0} and HEAD@{0} are almost always the
same, and @{1} and HEAD@{1} may often happen to be the same, but as
a blanket statement, I find Since HEAD is implicit in @{} very
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:34:01AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Just making sure. HEAD@{$n} and @{$n} for non-negative $n mean
totally different things. @{0} and HEAD@{0} are almost always the
same, and @{1} and HEAD@{1} may often happen to be the same, but as
Jeff King wrote:
The difference is that HEAD@{} refers to HEAD's reflog, but @{} refers
to the reflog of the branch pointed to by HEAD.
Ah, I missed this. Thanks for the testcase. My patch changes this
behavior, and I'm looking into the problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:34:01AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Just making sure. HEAD@{$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
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
