Re: tracking branch for a rebase

On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:29:50AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

I think using @{} is a reasonable extension format.

Sorry to enter this thread that late, but I did not realize that it 
touches my %<branch> work.

Your proposal leads to something like "master@{upstream}@{2.days.ago}", 
which looks ugly.  And it is much more to type.

I still think that it is not too-much asked for to require the 
"refs/heads/" prefix if somebody starts her branch names with "%".

I don't have a problem with restricting branch names starting with "%".
However, I do think "%.." is a bit ugly to read. And I am somewhat
concerned that we are eating the last reasonable available
meta-character for this feature, which will make things even harder next
time somebody suggests a clever feature. Which is why the discussion
turned to a generic extension syntax.

I wonder if it is worth adding @{upstream} now, which is fairly safe,
letting it cook for a while, and then adding a "%" alias later after the
concept has proved itself (and people say "I like this feature, but it
really is too much to type").

-Peff