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, T_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 661AA20A40 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 05:39:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751788AbdLCFjZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:39:25 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:53121 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750757AbdLCFjY (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:39:24 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE7AB6590; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:39:23 -0500 (EST) 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=/tahyMdIBFVmOn0hTagFx4FMjGA=; b=Ddkt5D 7SmblMExabZ/CzwZJB3siIbtDL1Zwl2UVS3WmyO/yMPE5LZMCfE4LyT2ucTV4CNy fzzLzGdIgUQnzuiBeSHwUdtFyLkbDAL2whkWShHVXFPRrWecXPTDgaQKhfn6jas8 pIRVS6XZv9R5fPXpn0Q9qAq9DjyfHNknAnHGw= 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=kB/9PGLy9/p9VGR9JsP1sE4VhDzTcExG bTY7R6UT2tBIXEz76Po3zxvb/YybWiY3D0A7iPCQ5ZVcIXeBq6bM7NwFlua7ZzpO l12zvHQ/R/TPiuSDrXvgETjaz4wwMXoWAzAFbCBeHTpEKIz4EecI3PtbtTXznxUp cVTtYjtKkf8= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B06B658F; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:39:23 -0500 (EST) 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 34312B658E; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:39:23 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Daniel Knittl-Frank Cc: "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: "git describe" documentation and behavior mismatch References: Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 21:39:21 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Daniel Knittl-Frank's message of "Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:26:26 +0100") 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: 512D953E-D7EC-11E7-BA61-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Daniel Knittl-Frank writes: > An interesting fact (and intentional behavior?) is that describing a > commit with only a lightweight tag will properly display the tags/ > prefix. I assume this is because the annotated tags only store the > tagname without any ref namespace, which is then picked up by git > describe and displayed. I suspect that "see if the name recorded in the tag object matches the name of the ref that stores the tag after refs/tags/" code *is* not just verifying what it claims to (which may be good) but also unintentionally affecting the output (i.e. "--all" promises that the prefix tags/ should be shown). Perhaps the code needs to be fixed if that is the case.