Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: >> >> -Also respects `:remotename` to state the name of the *remote* instead of >> >> -the ref. >> >> +Also respects `:remotename` to state the name of the *remote* instead >> >> +of the ref, and `:remoteref` to state the name of the *reference* as >> >> +locally known by the remote. >> > >> > What does "locally known by the remote" mean in this sentence? >> >> Good question. I cannot offhand offer a better and concise >> phrasing, but I think can explain what it wants to describe ;-). > > Yep, described it well. > > Maybe "and `:remoteref` to state the name by which the remote knows the > *reference*"?
I dunno. The original and your update both seem to come from a worldview where there is a single conceptual thing called "reference" that is shared between our repository and the remote repository we pull from (or push to), and the name we call it is "refs/remotes/origin/devel" while the name they use to call it is "refs/heads/devel". If you subscribe to that worldview, then the updated sentence might make it clearer than the original. But I do not share that worldview, and I am not sure (note: I am truly unsure---it's not like I am convinced it is a good idea but sugarcoating my expression, at least in this case) if subscribing to the worldview helps users' understanding. In my view "refs/remotes/origin/devel" is a reference we use to keep track of (or "a reference that corresponds to") the reference they have called "refs/heads/devel" at the remote, and these are two separate entities, so it's not like "this single thing is called differently by us and them". Stepping back a bit; here is how the description begins. upstream:: The name of a local ref which can be considered ``upstream'' from the displayed ref. So 'upstream' is like 'refs/remotes/origin/devel' in the example in the message you are responding to. Perhaps we can make it clear in the description, and then add :remote* modifiers are about asking where that remote-tracking branch comes from. For example, instead of these "Also respects...", something like: For a %(upstream) that is a remote-tracking branch, the name of the remote repository it is copied from can be obtained with %(upstream:remotename). Simiarly, the branch at the remote repository whose tip is copioed to this remote-tracking branch can be obtined with %(upstream:remoteref) as a full refname. may reduce the chance of confusion?