From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED3A20281 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 01:46:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934687AbdKCBql (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:46:41 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54463 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932285AbdKCBqk (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:46:40 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5653CBF50F; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:46:39 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=7dZXId7bl+5HH+D0daOg+jCEKoY=; b=DDNV4S MNPL7z921V1K4/2wdyM/4PrK41MD80voSWqUyRK7Knfd+Kz9QG9YurFnktTSG4a5 dWhWw3kpVytQt75hu9WSyJERsMf6gRCr/GnVXpmeRAHfqi8giP1xTI/AFuH+GuOj BBMB6EGP2m8QcjFQjLtQkXC00fF7NAe94bXqA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=XAR9oZD6gIb6oruaYcRWidg+KPO9YOax xgMbRJfHclwNMKTpjNa+b/mkkquXS8Cm0AJj487QjIxZVyQuZZ98q+suN8jzMzLl 1tHhZwPJRwgpgTMtA0tk4ML+ZxSxVVwJCa8CQ2nZy2K1O5+sv9GKmskkDdVi+1bk KtgZaXGI6FQ= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC5FBF50E; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1EB7BF50D; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 21:46:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jacob Keller Cc: Stefan Beller , Johannes Schindelin , Git mailing list , Kevin Daudt , Andreas Schwab Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/7] git describe blob References: <20171031211852.13001-1-sbeller@google.com> <20171102194148.2124-1-sbeller@google.com> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:46:37 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Jacob Keller's message of "Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:23:51 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D5581EA4-C038-11E7-914C-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jacob Keller writes: > I agree, "something" is better than "nothing", and we can work to > improve "something" in the future, especially after we get more real > use and see what people think. Only question would be how much do we > need to document the current behavior might be open for improvement? If - it always digs to the root of the history no matter what; and/or - it almost always yields correct but suboptimal result then that fact must be documented in BUGS section, possibly a brief descrition of why that limitation is there, with a hint to invite people to look into fixing it. We should mark it prominently as experimental and advertise it as such. "It's too slow in real project to be usable" and "Its output bases the answer on an irrelevant commit" are not something we want our users to experience, except for those with inclination to (or ability and time to) help improve the feature.