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: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:05:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20140512210505.GD2329@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140425231953.GB3855@sigill.intra.peff.net> <536D080C.7030402@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Felipe Contreras To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 12 23:05:21 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 1WjxPS-0000Jq-3u for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 12 May 2014 23:05:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756122AbaELVFI (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2014 17:05:08 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:50191 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755840AbaELVFH (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2014 17:05:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 24873 invoked by uid 102); 12 May 2014 21:05:07 -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; Mon, 12 May 2014 16:05:07 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 12 May 2014 17:05:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <536D080C.7030402@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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