From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F191F453 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:39:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729896AbeIYVr4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 17:47:56 -0400 Received: from mail.onyx.syn-alias.com ([206.152.134.66]:22036 "EHLO smtp.centurylink.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729890AbeIYVr4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 17:47:56 -0400 X_CMAE_Category: , , X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=GapVpkfL c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=yq6KBQdhjYNuzzW9wyfViA==:117 a=yq6KBQdhjYNuzzW9wyfViA==:17 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=JBFolyDoGHsA:10 a=s5tG97AM4P0A:10 a=Y4RQVEFPAAAA:8 a=C0Fo-xPT4J56Xb4HIDgA:9 a=nMUW6HVNqv1Rqol7:21 a=-cxLhGkVjTUl_8gA:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=JlNcNiPnxhPThaunNiio:22 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine X-Authed-Username: aGlnaGxhYkBxLmNvbQ== Authentication-Results: smtp01.onyx.dfw.sync.lan smtp.user=highlab@q.com; auth=pass (LOGIN) Received: from [70.59.37.62] ([70.59.37.62:34698] helo=bifrost) by smtp.centurylink.net (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.6.25.56547 r(Core:3.6.25.0)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256) id EC/EF-05367-6C65AAB5; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:39:51 -0400 Received: from [208.185.63.8] (helo=[10.116.4.235]) by bifrost with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g4pRG-0004rb-35; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:39:50 -0600 To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org References: From: Sebastian Kuzminsky Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:39:43 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 208.185.63.8 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: seb@highlab.com Subject: Re: bug in 'git describe'? X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on bifrost) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 9/24/18 4:24 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Sebastian Kuzminsky writes: > >> I've got two tiny git repos whose commit graphs are identical, but >> where 'git describe' gives different results. ... The histories >> differ only in the timestamps of the commits... > > describe does take the commit timestamps into account, so it is > expected you would get different results out of an otherwise > identically looking graph. Thanks for that confirmation. That behavior seems to me to be different from what the (2.11) manpage says: > it suffixes the tag name with the number of additional commits on top > of the tagged object And: > If multiple tags were found during the walk then the tag which has > the fewest commits different from the input commit-ish will be > selected and output. Here fewest commits different is defined as the > number of commits which would be shown by git log tag..input will be > the smallest number of commits possible. All that said, if you consider this "working as expected" then i'm content to let the matter drop. -- Sebastian Kuzminsky