So HEAD@{0}~0^0 is too much to type, but we can remove '^0', and we can
remove '~0', and we can remove 'HEAD', which leaves us with @{0}, but we
can't remove '{0}'?
This patch allows '@' to be the same as 'HEAD'.
So now we can use 'git show @~1', and all that goody goodness.
Until now '@' was a
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
So HEAD@{0}~0^0 is too much to type, but we can remove '^0', and we can
remove '~0', and we can remove 'HEAD', which leaves us with @{0}, but we
can't remove '{0}'?
This patch allows '@' to be the same as
On 1 May 2013 11:12, Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
So HEAD@{0}~0^0 is too much to type, but we can remove '^0', and we can
remove '~0', and we can remove 'HEAD', which leaves us with @{0}, but we
On 13-05-01 06:31 AM, Thomas Adam wrote:
On 1 May 2013 11:12, Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
So HEAD@{0}~0^0 is too much to type, but we can remove '^0', and we can
remove '~0', and we can remove
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
So HEAD@{0}~0^0 is too much to type, but we can remove '^0', and we can
remove '~0', and we can remove 'HEAD', which leaves us with @{0}, but we
can't remove '{0}'?
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
So HEAD@{0}~0^0 is too much to type, but we can remove '^0', and we can
remove '~0', and we can remove 'HEAD',
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
So HEAD@{0}~0^0 is too much to type, but we
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
The thing is, HEAD@{0}~0^0 nor HEAD@{u}~0^0 is not a valid
explanation why it is @, either.
But that does _not_ mean @ is a good choice. Nor the explanation
Arrgh. It does not mean '@' is a BAD choice . '@' _is_ good.
But the point is that the
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Exactly, because ref@something is used for operations on a ref. If
'ref' is missing, it only makes sense to use HEAD (or something like
that), and if 'something' is missing, it only makes sense to make it a
no-op, but since we don't want to
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Exactly, because ref@something is used for operations on a ref. If
'ref' is missing, it only makes sense to use HEAD (or something like
that), and if 'something' is
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
It is just the strip this, strip that explanation, which is not
technically correct, does _not_ have to be our justification for
picking
11 matches
Mail list logo