On 2019-07-11 at 09:46:26, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> After reading that thread, I come to the conclusion that it was not so
> much a decision not to pick it up, but more like a falling between the
> cracks.
> 
> I would be in favor of this patch.

I think there was some later follow-up in a different thread (one of the
"What's cooking" threads) that expressed reservations about it, but I
can't find that thread right now.

Regardless, if there's interest, I can certainly resend and see how
folks on the list feel about it.

> Since I have your attention and since I am interested in a related issue
> (when I wanted to propose a GSoC mini project to let `git fetch <remote>
> @` expand the `@` to the current (local) branch name, Matthieu Moy
> pointed out that `git fetch --current <remote>` might be a better UI):
> what does your patch do with `git fetch`'s refspec arguments?

I haven't checked. I believe it would resolve "git fetch origin @" to
"git fetch origin HEAD" and "git fetch origin @:refs/heads/master" to
"git fetch origin HEAD:refs/heads/master".

I can add some additional tests for this case, although I'm not
especially sure that it provides useful behavior people will want.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204