Re: [PATCH] revisions: add @{default} shorthand for default branch

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> writes:

> I pushed a WIP with some of these ideas now, not intended as the final
> thing.
>
>
> Harald

Meaning we should feel free to ignore v3 and possibly a few later
versions, until we hear from you?

I was writing the following as v3 review, but I guess these are
comments on a version not for public consumption, so ...

--- >8 ---

I'd rather not see you use "primary" for what init.defaultBranch
specifies, which already has a good name, "default".  If you are
using a different concept, like:

 * learn the remote @{upstream} for the current branch (for
   "@{primary}") or the named branch (for "$name@{primary}"), and
   then

 * look at refs/remotes/$remote/HEAD

then I would appreciate a good name to call that (which is a concept
that has no good name yet, as far as I can see) and "primary" might
be a good name for that new concept.

And from what I read as _your_ use case in an earlier message,
init.defaultBranch aka @{default} is not what you want 999/1, yet I
think what the patch implements is still that one.  Puzzled...