From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] verify-tag: add --check-name flag Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:29:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20160607222908.GA25631@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160607195608.16643-1-santiago@nyu.edu> <20160607211707.GA7981@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160607215536.GA20768@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160607220743.GA21043@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160607221325.GA21166@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: santiago@nyu.edu, Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine , Colin Walters To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 08 00:31:04 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bAPUr-0006g8-AT for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 00:29:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933678AbcFGW3N (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:29:13 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:50899 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933136AbcFGW3M (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:29:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 11776 invoked by uid 102); 7 Jun 2016 22:29:11 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:29:11 -0400 Received: (qmail 2679 invoked by uid 107); 7 Jun 2016 22:29:20 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:29:20 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:29:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:21:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > If you are suggesting that you can do the whole thing today by parsing > > the tag object yourself, then sure, I agree. I thought the point of the > > exercise was to make that less painful for the callers. > > Yes, and I somehow thought everybody agreed that --show-tag-name was > striking the balance at about the right level for ease-of-use and > simplicity? No, I think "--format" would be much better, unless you want to add a separate "--show-tagger-ident" when somebody wants to do a check between the tagger's ident and the key uid. But either way, I think the whole "do a rev-parse first" thing raises the question of what object identifiers "git tag" would accept. We would presumably expect: git tag --show-tag-name v1.0 to work. And I think in your world-view, so would: git tag --show-tag-name $(git rev-parse v1.0) How about: git tag --show-tag-name refs/tags/v1.0 And what about: git tag --show-tag-name refs/remotes/foo/v1.0 or even: git tag --show-tag-name foo/v1.0 when refs/remotes/foo/v1.0 exists? The rule right now is generally that "git tag" takes actual tag names. Plumbing like "verify-tag" takes arbitrary get_sha1() expressions, but you're expected to qualify or resolve your refnames before you get there, to avoid weird situations. This "tag --show-tag-name" seems to sit in the middle of plumbing and porcelain (for that matter, I am not sure that it should belong to git-tag at all, as it is really about scripting). -Peff