From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] describe/name-rev: tell name-rev to peel the incoming object to commit first
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 04:45:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vr4f8vtwc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130709053533.GA4395@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 9 Jul 2013 01:35:33 -0400")
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> Although I am still not clear on why it would not be up to the caller of
> git-describe in the first place to decide which they wanted.
Thanks for a dose of sanity.
Even though the part of the miniseries that makes sure that "X (Y)"
output from "name-rev" always satisfies that "rev-parse" on X and Y
give the same thing is an improvement, the whole thing about
"describe" is misguided and wrong, I think.
It started from the observation that these do not match:
$ git describe $(git rev-parse v1.8.3)
v1.8.3
$ git describe --contains $(git rev-parse v1.8.3)
v1.8.3^0
and the miniseries veered in a wrong direction of "fixing" the
latter to match the former.
But the thing is, what is incosistent from the rest of the world is
the describe output without "--contains" for a commit that is
exactly at a tag (i.e. the former), and there is no need to "fix"
this "inconsistency", as we see below.
The form without "--contains" in general reads like this:
$ git describe --long $(git rev-parse v1.8.3) a717d9e
v1.8.3-0-gedca415
v1.8.3-2-ga717d9e
They both name a commit object, but that is sort of an afterthought;
the support for describe name came late at 7dd45e15 (sha1_name.c:
understand "describe" output as a valid object name, 2006-09-20).
The primary purpose of "git describe" without "--contains" is to
give a string that is suitable for a version number to be embedded
in an executable. For that purpose, "v1.8.3" is more convenient
than "v1.8.3-0-gedca415".
But this convenient format breaks the consistency. While any other
describe name for a commmit names a commit, the output for a commit
that is exactly at a tag does not (in ancient times, describe output
were not even extended SHA-1 expressions, so this inconsistency did
not matter, but the "afterthought" brought the consistency to the
foreground). The user chooses the convenience over the consistency
by not using "--long".
And the short form cannot be "v1.8.3^0" or "v1.8.3~0" for the sake of
"consistency", as these are no more suitable as a version number
than a short and sweet "v1.8.3".
The "--contains" form does not even aim to come up with a pleasant
looking version string without using funny line noise characters, so
it is perfectly fine for it to say:
$ git describe --contains $(git rev-parse v1.8.3) a717d9e
v1.8.3^0
v1.8.3.1~9
and these are internally consistent (they both roundtrip via
rev-parse). Stripping "^0" from the former will break the
consistency, even though it may make the output look prettier, but
the "--contains" output is not even meant to be "pretty" in the
first place.
So let's drop 4/4; it is breaking the system by trying to solve a
problem that does not exist.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-09 11:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-07 22:33 [PATCH 0/4] Make "git name-rev $(git rev-parse v1.8.3)" work Junio C Hamano
2013-07-07 22:33 ` [PATCH 1/4] name-ref: factor out name shortening logic from name_ref() Junio C Hamano
2013-07-08 8:52 ` Michael Haggerty
2013-07-08 15:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-07 22:33 ` [PATCH 2/4] name-rev: allow converting the exact object name at the tip of a ref Junio C Hamano
2013-07-08 12:20 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-07-08 15:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-07 22:33 ` [PATCH 3/4] describe: use argv-array Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 4:51 ` Jeff King
2013-07-09 14:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 16:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 18:53 ` Jeff King
2013-07-07 22:33 ` [PATCH 4/4] describe/name-rev: tell name-rev to peel the incoming object to commit first Junio C Hamano
2013-07-08 13:08 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-07-09 5:12 ` Jeff King
2013-07-09 5:06 ` Jeff King
2013-07-09 5:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-07-09 5:35 ` Jeff King
2013-07-09 11:45 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2013-07-09 12:42 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7vr4f8vtwc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).