On 2019-07-11 at 09:46:26, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > After reading that thread, I come to the conclusion that it was not so > much a decision not to pick it up, but more like a falling between the > cracks. > > I would be in favor of this patch.
I think there was some later follow-up in a different thread (one of the "What's cooking" threads) that expressed reservations about it, but I can't find that thread right now. Regardless, if there's interest, I can certainly resend and see how folks on the list feel about it. > Since I have your attention and since I am interested in a related issue > (when I wanted to propose a GSoC mini project to let `git fetch <remote> > @` expand the `@` to the current (local) branch name, Matthieu Moy > pointed out that `git fetch --current <remote>` might be a better UI): > what does your patch do with `git fetch`'s refspec arguments? I haven't checked. I believe it would resolve "git fetch origin @" to "git fetch origin HEAD" and "git fetch origin @:refs/heads/master" to "git fetch origin HEAD:refs/heads/master". I can add some additional tests for this case, although I'm not especially sure that it provides useful behavior people will want. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
