Re: [RFC/PATCH] git put: an alternative to add/reset/checkout

Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I find the all-caps ugly, and it is part of what confuses them with
HEAD. At the same time, we are using the same namespace that ref lookup
uses. So calling it "worktree" might be too ambiguous. I tried to avoid
using "--worktree" because I wanted to make it clear that these were
ordered arguments, not options.

Perhaps we can use some character that is forbidden in ref names,
doesn't make trouble when doing allowed operations on said refs, won't
confuse user, and is not trouble with shell... ehhh...

* @{wtree} would confuse users that it has something to do with reflog

Well, we already have @{upstream} ...

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:28:35PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:

quoted

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I find the all-caps ugly, and it is part of what confuses them with
HEAD. At the same time, we are using the same namespace that ref lookup
uses. So calling it "worktree" might be too ambiguous. I tried to avoid
using "--worktree" because I wanted to make it clear that these were
ordered arguments, not options.

Perhaps we can use some character that is forbidden in ref names,
doesn't make trouble when doing allowed operations on said refs, won't
confuse user, and is not trouble with shell... ehhh...

* @{wtree} would confuse users that it has something to do with reflog

Well, we already have @{upstream} ...

Yes, but like all of the @{} things, it's a modifier for the left-hand
side. So "master@{upstream}" is meaningful, and "@{upstream}" is the
same as "HEAD@{upstream}".

What does "master@{wtree}" mean?

-Peff