From: Matheus Tavares Bernardino <email@example.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Jeff King <email@example.com>, git <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Roland Hieber <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] describe: output tag's ref instead of embedded name
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:19:20 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHd-oW7HJb2d10U_dcbB6G-UdopQ7HKyghAji=9VhmAgn3Dw_Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:34 PM Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Another thing that is not satisfying is what should happen in "all"
> mode. We add "tags/" prefix so in the case we've been discussing,
> the output would be "tags/v1.0-0-g0123456", but the whole reason why
> we add the prefix is to say that the early part of the name, "v1.0",
> is a tag, and it would be natural to associate it with refs/tags/v1.0
> that is *not* Bob's tag.
Yeah, that is not very satisfying, but at least the emitted warning
would make the user think twice before wrongly associating
refs/tags/v1.0 with Bob's tag?
> Having said all that, here is what I have at this moment.
> -- >8 --
> Subject: describe: force long format for a name based on a mislocated tag
> The output from "git describe", at least in the modern Git, should
> be usable as an object name to name the exact commit given to the
> "git describe" command. Using the tagname, when two names differ,
> breaks this property, when describing a commit that is directly
> pointed at by such a tag. An annotated tag Bob made as "v1.0" may
> sit at "refs/tags/v1.0-bob" in the ref hierarchy, and output from
> "git describe v1.0-bob^0" would say "v1.0", but there may not be
> any tag at "refs/tags/v1.0" locally or there may be another tag that
> points at a different object.
> Note that this won't be a problem if a commit being described is not
> directly pointed at by such a mislocated tag. In the example in the
> previous paragraph, "git describe v1.0-bob~1" would result in "v1.0"
> (i.e. the tagname taken from the tag object) followed by "-1-gXXXXX"
I now this is just an illustration, but shouldn't this example be "git
describe --contains v1.0-bob~1"? Otherwise, I think the tag wouldn't
be found as it comes after the given commit. Testing here without
--contains I get the error "fatal: No tags can describe <sha1 hash>"
However, when using --contains, the output is also not what I
expected. It doesn't fail, but I get "v1.0-bob~1". I.e., it not only
prints the refname instead of the tagname but also don't print any
warnings... This is not what we want, right?
> Show the name in the long format, i.e. with "-0-gXXXXX" suffix, when
> the name we give is based on a mislocated annotated tag to ensure
> that the output can be used as the object name for the object
> originally given to the command to fix the issue.
Another case that came to my mind is when the user runs `git describe
--abrev=0 HEAD` and v1.0-bob points to HEAD~. In this case, v1.0 will
be displayed without suffix, so it is not usable at get_oid(). Should
we, perhaps, also force the long output in this case?
And talking about the forced long output, using `--abbrev=0` in HEAD
(i.e. tag: v1.0-bob), after the patch, will make the complete hash be
displayed. This might be an unnecessary cosmetic nitpick, but we might
want to follow the default behavior when --long is given and use just
as many digits as necessary?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-20 22:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-05 14:13 git-describe --tags warning: 'X' is really 'Y' here Roland Hieber
2020-02-05 17:15 ` Matheus Tavares Bernardino
2020-02-14 6:53 ` Jeff King
2020-02-14 16:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-15 21:34 ` [PATCH] describe: output tag's ref instead of embedded name Matheus Tavares
2020-02-16 6:51 ` Jeff King
2020-02-18 19:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-18 19:54 ` Jeff King
2020-02-18 23:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-18 23:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-19 1:57 ` Jeff King
2020-02-19 3:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-19 3:56 ` Jeff King
2020-02-19 11:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-20 11:25 ` Jeff King
2020-02-20 17:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-20 22:19 ` Matheus Tavares Bernardino [this message]
2020-02-20 22:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-21 1:33 ` Matheus Tavares
2020-02-21 2:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-02-21 6:00 ` Jeff King
2020-02-21 5:58 ` Jeff King
2020-02-19 10:08 ` Roland Hieber
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:
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 \
* 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
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).