Re: [PATCH 0/2] @{u} updates

Hi,

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Earlier I wondered if the approach Dscho's patch takes to teach the new
@{upstream} syntax to substitute_branch_name() (hence dwim_ref()) without
teaching it to interpret_branch_name() (hence strbuf_branchname()) was a
bad idea.  I thought about this a bit more; there are some downsides for
not doing so.

The first patch adds a handful of tests that show why strbuf_branchname()
callers may also want to learn about the new syntax.  The second patch
moves the logic to interpret_branch_name() to make them happier.

Looks good to me.

Ciao,
Dscho