Re: Commiting automatically (2)

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 3 Jan 2011, Maaartin-1 wrote:
> On 10-12-27 13:04, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Maaartin-1 wrote:

>>> Moreover, git-show-ref --head shows all branches and tags, this can't be
>>> right, can it? According to your above explanation, getting HEAD using a
>>> pattern is impossible, so I'd say that's what is "--head" good for.
>>>
>>> Moreover, "git-show-ref --heads" shows less than "git-show-ref --head",
>>> despite the plural.
>> 
>> "git show-ref --head" is strange in that it doesn't play well
>> with '--heads' and '--tags' and '<pattern>'.
>> 
>> I think it is a bit of misdesign, but I don't know how it should be
>> fixed; current output of "git show-ref --head" has to be kept because
>> of backward compatibility - git-show-ref is plumbing.
> 
> I wonder what
> git show-ref --head
> really does. It seems to output everything, is this the expected (albeit
> strange) behavior? Maybe, I know now, s. below.
> 
> For sure, either the doc is completely wrong or the implementation. I
> hope I understand "Show the HEAD reference" correctly as showing the
> HEAD reference, don't I? So it must show a single reference (singular).
> Instead I get all tags and all heads. Could anybody either fix the doc
> or convince me that the many lines I'm seeing are a single one?

Well, it might be that *both* documentation and implementation are wrong.

> 
> Shouldn't there be an option *really* doing what --head is expected and
> documented to do? I mean something like
> git show-ref --head --yes-I-really-mean-the-head
> with the output consisting of a single line like
> 4ba2b422cf3cc229d894bb31c429c0c588de85c0 HEAD
> Maybe it could be called --head-only.
> 
> It could help a lot to add the word "additionally" to the doc like
> --head
> Additionally show the HEAD reference.

Well, actually it doesn't do that.  If '--head' is *alone* ref selector
(e.g. "git show-ref --head") it shows HEAD reference in addition to all
other refs (e.g. what "git show-ref" would show).  But it doesn't seem
to work in described way when combined with any of ref specifiers; neither
"git show-ref --head --heads" not "git show-ref --head master" work as 
one would expect.

> 
>>>> I tripped over strange git-show-ref <pattern> semantic too.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. there is also git-for-each-ref.
>> 
>> I don't know why there is git-show-ref when we have git-for-each-ref
>> for scripting; I guess they were added nearly at the same time...
> 
> I guess, I can get the single line I wanted using
> git for-each-ref $(git symbolic-ref HEAD)
> right?

Well, both git-show-ref and git-for-each-ref are meant for checking or
viewing multiple refs at once.  If you are working with a single ref,
then git-rev-parse (e.g. "git rev-parse --symboolic HEAD" or 
"git rev-parse --symbolic-full-name HEAD") or git-symbolic-ref would be
a better choice IMHO.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland