From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Support config-based names Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:28:08 -0700 Message-ID: <7vbqfln3mf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 12 07:28:29 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hxyva-0007lT-Ly for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:28:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752839AbXFLF2L (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:28:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753225AbXFLF2L (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:28:11 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.241.41]:61669 "EHLO fed1rmmtao105.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752996AbXFLF2K (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:28:10 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070612052809.XJWZ6565.fed1rmmtao105.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:28:09 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id AVU81X0081kojtg0000000; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:28:09 -0400 User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Daniel Barkalow writes: > It can be useful to refer to commits in remotes based on their configured > relationship to local branches. For example, "git log HEAD^[push]..HEAD" > would, when pushing is set up, show what hasn't been pushed yet. It's not like we will be adding 'push' objects and 'merge' objects, so I think HEAD^{push} (curly brace, not bracket) is good enough. We need to see how useful this would be in practice; we would not want to add new syntax without a set of convincing use cases. At this point, it still feels as if it is a feature that was implemented only because it could, not because there was a real need.