From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: tracking branch for a rebase Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:45:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20090909104550.GA20108@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090904135414.GA3728@honk.padd.com> <4AA124DD.1030208@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20090904181846.GC19093@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090904185949.GA21583@atjola.homenet> <20090905061250.GA29863@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090905140127.GA29037@atjola.homenet> <20090905142841.GB15631@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vfxaz9wfi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090907084324.GB17997@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJu?= Steinbrink , Michael J Gruber , Pete Wyckoff , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 09 12:46:12 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MlKge-00051o-Rq for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:46:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752829AbZIIKpz (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:45:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752327AbZIIKpz (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:45:55 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:39185 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751979AbZIIKpy (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:45:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 27773 invoked by uid 107); 9 Sep 2009 10:46:11 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:46:11 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 09 Sep 2009 06:45:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:29:50AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > I think using @{} is a reasonable extension format. > > Sorry to enter this thread that late, but I did not realize that it > touches my % work. > > Your proposal leads to something like "master@{upstream}@{2.days.ago}", > which looks ugly. And it is much more to type. > > I still think that it is not too-much asked for to require the > "refs/heads/" prefix if somebody starts her branch names with "%". I don't have a problem with restricting branch names starting with "%". However, I do think "%.." is a bit ugly to read. And I am somewhat concerned that we are eating the last reasonable available meta-character for this feature, which will make things even harder next time somebody suggests a clever feature. Which is why the discussion turned to a generic extension syntax. I wonder if it is worth adding @{upstream} now, which is fairly safe, letting it cook for a while, and then adding a "%" alias later after the concept has proved itself (and people say "I like this feature, but it really is too much to type"). -Peff