> The concept of "n-th prior checkout" (aka @{-n}) and "immediately
> previous checkout" (aka "-") are equivalent, even though the former
> may be more generic.
>
> You seem to be saying that those who understand the former are with
> superiour mental capacity in general than those who only know th
Junio C Hamano writes:
>> Furthermore, were we to translate "@{-1}", does that mean we
>> should also translate "@{-2}" or prior?
>
> Surely, why not. If a user is so forgetful to need help remembering
> where s/he was immediately before, wouldn't it be more helpful to
> give "here is where you
Brian Gesiak writes:
> Personally, I've been using the "-" shorthand with "git checkout"
> for a year or so, but only learned about "@{-1}" a few months ago.
> I think those who use "@{-1}" are familiar enough with the concept
> that they don't need to have the reference translated to a
> symboli
Thank you for the feedback!
> Imagine the case where there are more than one branches
> whose tip points at the commit you came from.
> name-rev will not be able to pick correctly which one to report.
I see. Yes, you're exactly right; the following demonstrates
the problem:
$ git checkout -b xyl
Brian Gesiak writes:
> The output from a successful invocation of the shorthand command
> "git rebase -" is something like "Fast-forwarded HEAD to @{-1}",
> which includes a relative reference to a revision. Other commands
> that use the shorthand "-", such as "git checkout -", typically
> displa
The output from a successful invocation of the shorthand command
"git rebase -" is something like "Fast-forwarded HEAD to @{-1}",
which includes a relative reference to a revision. Other commands
that use the shorthand "-", such as "git checkout -", typically
display the symbolic name of the revisi
6 matches
Mail list logo
