Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2014, #08; Fri, 25)

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 06:53:32PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:

> 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
> coincide?

I don't think it is too late, as nothing has even made it to "master"
(and even once shipped, we can add an alias with a different name,
advertise that, and use its shorthand).

However, I am not sure if that is a good approach. New terms might not
collide in single-letters, but their full names might also not be as
descriptive. We'd have to judge actual proposals to see.

In addition, there was a discussion about having "pull" as an opposite
of "push" (which would make it an alias for "upstream"), that would also
collide. So there is a potential third name to deal with.

-Peff