On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:39:44PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> The ref-filter code generally expects to see fully qualified
> refs, so that things like "%(refname)" and "%(refname:short)"
> work as expected. We can do so easily from git-tag, which
> always works with refnames in the refs/tags namespace. As a
> bonus, we can drop the "kind" parameter from
> pretty_print_ref() and just deduce it automatically.
> 
> Unfortunately, things are not so simple for verify-tag,
> which takes an arbitrary sha1 expression. It has no clue if
> a refname as used or not, and whether it was in the
> refs/tags namespace.
> 
> In an ideal world, get_sha1_with_context() would optionally
> tell us about any refs we resolved while it was working, and
> we could just feed that refname (and then in cases where we
> didn't use a ref at all, like a bare sha1, we could fallback
> to just showing the sha1 name the user gave us).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> I think you'd really just squash the various bits of this into your
> series at the right spots, though I don't mind it on top, either.
> 
> The big question is to what degree we should care about the verify-tag
> case. I don't think it's any worse off with this change than it is with
> your series (its "kind" becomes "OTHER", but I don't think that is
> actually used for display at all; the name remains the same). I'd be OK
> with leaving it like this, as a known bug, until get_sha1_with_context()
> learns to tell us about the ref. It's an unhandled corner case in a
> brand-new feature, not a regression in an existing one.

I see now, I think I can sprinkle some of these changes on 2/7 then. The
rest should be doing 4/7 and 5/7. Does this sound ok?