OT: Why is it HEAD:main?

I use git push freebsd main.

Also @jrtc27 taught me you can use @ instead of HEAD, and it's a lot more ergo because you usually need a tilde and it's right there.

HEAD:main works if these commits aren't on 'main' in the local repo, so is a safer pattern. It's also the pattern that git guides use.

As for @ vs HEAD, I'm agnostic. I didn't know that was possible.

It's handy for ports work too. :)

Optional word-smithing.

Grammar nit. This is a comma splice (two independent clauses joined by a comma).
I had an IRC conversation with @jhb about this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe any ref would be valid, so I attempted to imply that.

@jhb was concerned that listing branch names could cause confusion.

just want to avoid people thinking that naming a branch
creates reviews for all commits on that branch
becasue it doesn't, it just creates a review for the commit at the end that matches the branch name

I added a second sentence to address those concerns.

Should we omit src? I guess this works with any tree.

Grammar nits. Feel free to ignore if they are annoying.

I also use it on the docs tree!

We could say 'source tree'?

Oh I see. Thanks. I always (from $branch) alias gpfm=git pull freebsd main; alias gsw=git switch to main, alias grb=git rebase $branch.

If it anything complex I'll push to origin (my GitHub) first and then alias gf=got fetch --all and alias gwd=git status to make sure that I'm $intended_commits_number commits ahead

It's a bit labor intensive, but I'm afraid of accidentally pushing drafts.