| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Typing 'HEAD' is tedious, especially when we can use '@' instead.
The reason for choosing '@' is that it follows naturally from the
ref@op syntax (e.g. HEAD@{u}), except we have no ref, and no
operation, and when we don't have those, it makes sens to assume
'HEAD'.
So now we can use 'git show @~1', and all that goody goodness.
Until now '@' was a valid name, but it conflicts with this idea, so
let's make it invalid. Probably very few people, if any, used this name.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit cdfd94837b27c220f70f032b596ea993d195488f, as it
does not just apply to "@" (and forms with modifiers like @{u}
applied to it), but also affects e.g. "refs/heads/@/foo", which it
shouldn't.
The basic idea of giving a short-hand might be good, and the topic
can be retried later, but let's revert to avoid affecting existing
use cases for now for the upcoming release.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Typing 'HEAD' is tedious, especially when we can use '@' instead.
The reason for choosing '@' is that it follows naturally from the
ref@op syntax (e.g. HEAD@{u}), except we have no ref, and no
operation, and when we don't have those, it makes sens to assume
'HEAD'.
So now we can use 'git show @~1', and all that goody goodness.
Until now '@' was a valid name, but it conflicts with this idea, so
let's make it invalid. Probably very few people, if any, used this name.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All the tests so far check that @{N} is the same as HEAD@{N} (for
positive N). However, this is not always the case; write a couple of
tests for this.
[fc: simplify some wording]
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Add more tests exercising documented functionality.
[fc: commit message and extra tests]
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In some circumstances 'git log' might fail, but not because the @
parsing failed. For example: 'git rev-parse' might succeed and return a
bad object, and then 'git log' would fail.
The layer we want to test is revision parsing, so let's test that
directly.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Some committishes might point to the same commit, but through a
different ref, that's why it's better to check directly for the ref,
rather than the commit message.
We can do that by calling rev-parse --symbolic-full-name, and to
differentiate the old from the new behavior we add an extra argument to
the check() helper.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The test is setting up an upstream branch, but there's a much simpler
way of doing that: git branch -u.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Something like foo@{-1} is nonsensical, as the @{-N} syntax
is reserved for "the Nth last branch", and is not an actual
reflog selector. We should not feed such nonsense to
approxidate at all.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously interpret_branch_name would see @{-1} and stop
parsing, leaving the @{u} as cruft that provoked an error.
Instead, we should recurse if there is more to parse.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
|
Now that we have several different types of @{} syntax, it
is a good idea to test them together, which reveals some
failures.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
