mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: anatoly techtonik <>
To: Philip Oakley <>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <>,
	"Randall S. Becker" <>,
	"Junio C Hamano" <>,
	"Git Mailing List" <>,
	"Igor Djordjevic" <>
Subject: Re: Re: Unify annotated and non-annotated tags
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 16:41:37 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FF34D4C2058D44E990BF149F3AB1E010@PhilipOakley>

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Philip Oakley <> wrote:
> From: "anatoly techtonik" <>
> comment at end - Philip
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:52 AM, anatoly techtonik <>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Randall S. Becker
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-11-23 02:31 (GMT-05:00) anatoly techtonik wrote
>>>>> Subject: Re: Unify annotated and non-annotated tags
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Junio C Hamano <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Igor Djordjevic <> writes:
>>>>>>> If you would like to mimic output of "git show-ref", repeating
>>>>>>> commits for each tag pointing to it and showing full tag name as
>>>>>>> well, you could do something like this, for example:
>>>>>>>       for tag in $(git for-each-ref --format="%(refname)" refs/tags)
>>>>>>>       do
>>>>>>>               printf '%s %s\n' "$(git rev-parse $tag^0)" "$tag"
>>>>>>>       done
>>>>>>> Hope that helps a bit.
>>>>>> If you use for-each-ref's --format option, you could do something
>>>>>> like (pardon a long line):
>>>>>> git for-each-ref
>>>>>> --format='%(if)%(*objectname)%(then)%(*objectname)%(else)%(objectname)%(end)
>>>>>> %(refname)' refs/tags
>>>>>> without any loop, I would think.
>>>>> Thanks. That helps.
>>>>> So my proposal is to get rid of non-annotated tags, so to get all
>>>>> tags with commits that they point to, one would use:
>>>>> git for-each-ref --format='%(*objectname) %(refname)' refs/tags>
>>>>> For so-called non-annotated tags just leave the message empty.
>>>>> I don't see why anyone would need non-annotated tags though.
>>>> I have seen non-annotated tags used in automations (not necessarily well
>>>> written ones) that create tags as a record of automation activity. I am not
>>>> sure we should be writing off the concept of unannotated tags entirely. This
>>>> may cause breakage based on existing expectations of how tags work at
>>>> present. My take is that tags should include whodunnit, even if it's just
>>>> the version of the automation being used, but I don't always get to have my
>>>> wishes fulfilled. In essence, whatever behaviour a non-annotated tag has now
>>>> may need to be emulated in future even if reconciliation happens. An option
>>>> to preserve empty tag compatibility with pre-2.16 behaviour, perhaps? Sadly,
>>>> I cannot supply examples of this usage based on a human memory page-fault
>>>> and NDAs.
>>> Are there any windows for backward compatibility breaks, or git is
>>> doomed to preserve it forever?
>>> Automation without support won't survive for long, and people who rely
>>> on that, like Chromium team, usually hard set the version used.
>> Git is not doomed to preserve anything forever. We've gradually broken
>> backwards compatibility for a few core things like these.
>> However, just as a bystander reading this thread I haven't seen any
>> compelling reason for why these should be removed. You initially had
>> questions about how to extract info about them, which you got answers
>> to.
>> So what reasons remain for why they need to be removed?
> To reduce complexity and prior knowledge when dealing with Git tags.
> For example, site contains a lot of broken
> "Edit on GitHub" links, for example -
> And it appeared that the reason for that is discrepancy between git
> annotated and non-annotated tags. The pull request that fixes the issue
> after it was researched and understood is simple
> However, while looking through linked issues and PRs, one can try to
> imagine how many days it took for people to come up with the solution,
> which came from this thread.
> --
> anatoly t.
> So if I understand correctly, the hope is that `git show-ref --tags` could
> get an alternate option `--all-tags` [proper option name required...] such
> that the user would not have to develop the rather over the complicated
> expression that used a newish capability of a different command.
> Would that be right?

That's correct.

> Or at least update the man page docs to clarify the annotated vs
> non-annotated tags issue (many SO questions!).

Are there stats how many users read man pages and what is their
reading session length? I mean docs may not help much,

> And indicate if the --dereference and/or --hash options would do the trick!
> - maybe the "^{}" appended would be part of the problem (and need that new
> option "--objectreference" ).

--dereference would work if it didn't require extra processing.
It is hard to think about other option name that would give
desired result.

anatoly t.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-23 13:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
2017-11-23 15:08 ` Re: Unify annotated and non-annotated tags Randall S. Becker
2017-11-23 21:24   ` Thomas Braun
2017-11-24  9:52   ` anatoly techtonik
2017-11-24 10:24     ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-12-02 21:26       ` anatoly techtonik
2017-12-02 22:25         ` Philip Oakley
2017-12-23 13:41           ` anatoly techtonik [this message]
2017-12-24 12:31             ` Philip Oakley
2017-12-03  5:54         ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-24 14:11     ` Randall S. Becker

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:

  List information:

* 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).