Stefano Lattarini [off-list ref] writes:
My problems is that some new automagical interpretation of the bare
@' character (introduced after 1.8.3) has destroyed my use case:
...
I don't want to ask you to revert this new behaviour, but I'd like to
at least have an option to disable it.
I do not think it is simply not worth the complexity to selectively
disable it. If it is a regression, it is much better to simply
revert, if we can (it appears that cdfd9483 (Add new @ shortcut for
HEAD, 2013-05-07) can be reverted without any textual context, but
there may already be new stuff that depends on the "@").
For the upcoming release, I am very much tempted to revert it and
let the topic retried, by people who really want the "let's save
four keystrokes and replace it with @ aka Shift-<something>",
without hurting your use case (and others), after the upcoming
release.
What do others think?
[re-sending to the list, sorry Junio for the duplicate mail]
On 08/14/2013 07:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini [off-list ref] writes:
>
>> My problems is that some new automagical interpretation of the bare
>> @' character (introduced after 1.8.3) has destroyed my use case:
>> ...
>> I don't want to ask you to revert this new behaviour, but I'd like to
>> at least have an option to disable it.
>
> I do not think it is simply not worth the complexity to selectively
> disable it. If it is a regression, it is much better to simply
> revert, if we can (it appears that cdfd9483 (Add new @ shortcut for
> HEAD, 2013-05-07) can be reverted without any textual context, but
> there may already be new stuff that depends on the "@").
>
I'm not sure I want to force a revert simply to cater to a personal
idiom of mine (and not that important). I'd first like to hear what the
community thinks about the issue (with silence meaning "don't revert").
> For the upcoming release, I am very much tempted to revert it and
> let the topic retried, by people who really want the "let's save
> four keystrokes and replace it with @ aka Shift-<something>",
> without hurting your use case (and others), after the upcoming
> release.
>
> What do others think?
>
I second this question :-)
Thanks,
Stefano
Am 14.08.2013 20:05, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Stefano Lattarini [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
My problems is that some new automagical interpretation of the bare
@' character (introduced after 1.8.3) has destroyed my use case:
...
I don't want to ask you to revert this new behaviour, but I'd like to
at least have an option to disable it.
I do not think it is simply not worth the complexity to selectively
disable it. If it is a regression, it is much better to simply
revert, if we can (it appears that cdfd9483 (Add new @ shortcut for
HEAD, 2013-05-07) can be reverted without any textual context, but
there may already be new stuff that depends on the "@").
For the upcoming release, I am very much tempted to revert it and
let the topic retried, by people who really want the "let's save
four keystrokes and replace it with @ aka Shift-<something>",
without hurting your use case (and others), after the upcoming
release.
What do others think?
Stefano's use-case, where @/foo is turned into HEAD/foo, indicates a bug.
In my opinion, the topic, which touches a central part of ref handling,
was a bit hurried (and this report is a symptom of it), and I wouldn't
mind seeing it reverted.
-- Hannes