From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7A12036C for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 01:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751213AbdJEByW (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:54:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:58689 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751177AbdJEByV (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:54:21 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072CAA8F42; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:54:21 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=YtMJMx4M4PP5MhrXObcd1apmKyc=; b=kH/6XR TlrerdSMbXT9tvrGnVr6fNHx/67vGPKvlnc2dkkMUpSg+9gAMHRn3IpMsfSBd17c v+Ie0i1JnFFmJTqAjTAbz0c4768jhshcjOIvQgQJQbzKx+eW9JgKoH8m3nmbzf/A OLV8U4fSQ3tH0BDIleJa5J0JX2OdBWTl4QMfc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=re9tBkS9zBKcIFfqQU/o5dl/5MjMUABp TEIVPc2mVEOMD1w0evnkTK6zDlkjsmAmAZtPsmcZU7TbAnUUQRYOPs2vyNC4faVz 8tKERoq/7cv9suY1W7zLkqP4ad0b0k3t7dJcWd6NG36cDLQq4iwYgcV2ElzXKgZ7 BL1sAMIN1YM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CB5A8F41; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:54:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64A77A8F40; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:54:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] for-each-ref: add :remote-ref and :remote-name specifiers References: Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 10:54:19 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:56:32 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1A82B852-A970-11E7-93B5-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > Note: the `%(push:remote-name)` placeholder is only interpolated by the value > of `branch..pushRemote`; unlike `git push`, it does not fall back to > `branch..remote`. Likewise, `%(push:remote-ref)` interpolates to the > empty string unless `remote..pushRefs` is configured. I think the reason why I had to spend more time than necessary on the above point during my review on this (otherwise mostly well done) topic was because of this note. It says what it does, but does not say why this behaviour is better than the other obvious alternative. In a reroll to address the remaining points, please update the log message (not the cover, which won't be in the committed history) to explain why we think this is a better choice than an obvious alternative. Let's help future readers of "git log". Thanks.