Ramkumar Ramachandra <[email protected]> writes:
> To emphasize what we're testing in @{1}@{u}, document that @{0}@{0} is
> also nonsense. This makes it clear that @{<n>} does not resolve to a
> ref whose upstream we can determine with @{u}/ reflog we can dig with
> @{0}.
>
> Since HEAD is implicit in @{},...
Just making sure. HEAD@{$n} and @{$n} for non-negative $n mean
totally different things. @{0} and HEAD@{0} are almost always the
same, and @{1} and HEAD@{1} may often happen to be the same, but as
a blanket statement, I find "Since HEAD is implicit in @{}" very
misleading.
As you and Felipe seem to be aiming for the same "Let's allow users
to say '@' when they mean HEAD", I'll let you two figure the best
approach out.
One productive way forward might be to come up with a common test
script pieces to document what constructs that spell @ in place of
HEAD should be supported, and much more importantly, what constructs
that happen to have @ in them should not mistakenly trigger the new
machinery.
Have fun ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
