From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #08; Fri, 25) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:25:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20140426042521.GA5799@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140425231953.GB3855@sigill.intra.peff.net> <535b0db7e5e31_ba2148d310f4@nysa.notmuch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Apr 26 06:25:30 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WduB7-0004YG-5B for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 06:25:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751297AbaDZEZY (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:25:24 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:38827 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750729AbaDZEZX (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:25:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 20401 invoked by uid 102); 26 Apr 2014 04:25:23 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:25:23 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:25:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <535b0db7e5e31_ba2148d310f4@nysa.notmuch> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 08:36:55PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > 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. > > Presumably you want to save it for @{push}. While I'm not against to having > just @{publish} for now, I'm farily certain most people would be using > @{publish} and not @{push}, as that's what `git branch -v` would show, and it > would be closely similar to @{upstream}. Therefore it would make sense to use > @{p} for @{publish} No, I do not think it would be a good idea for @{push}, either. If we have two concepts so similarly named (and especially if we add @{pull}, which has also been mentioned), then I think having @{p} just adds to confusion. So I would much rather wait and see. It is very easy to add @{p} later, but it is very hard to take it back once used. -Peff