Subject: Re: [PATCH v27 2/2] status: add status.compareBranches config for multiple branch comparisons

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:29:07 -0800

Harald Nordgren <[email-masked]> writes:

> I can apply the changes from these three messages, but I don't really
> know the side-effects of it. Should I do it and submit a patch?

Please do not send code you cannot answer to questions on it,
whether it is written by somebody else,  genAI, or your cat rolling
on your keyboard ;-).

I think we are getting close but will need more polish before we can
allow users to reuse their already acquired knowledge of how refname
DWIMmery can be used to spell various refs they mean.

If we support only @{push} and @{upstream} and error out when we see
anything else (like "origin" or "origin/main") in the initial
version we ship to the end-users, that would probably be a good
stopping point.  On top of it, we can later add the DWIMmery Peff
has shown (with necessary tweaks, as you found out, like supporting
tags, perhaps), and that will be purely new feature that does not
change any behaviour of what used to work for our users in the
initial version.

Going that way is much safer and does not break end-user
experiences, like shipping the first version with "we always prefix
hardcoded refs/remotes/ unless it is @{something}", which will have
to change the behaviour once the proper DWIMmery gets implemented.

In any case, that will have to happen all after the current cycle is
over, it is way too late even for "@{push} and @{upstream} only"
version for this cycle.