From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink Subject: Re: [PATCH] Proof-of-concept patch to remember what the detached HEAD was Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:48:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20091017174843.GA16251@atjola.homenet> References: <20091016143041.GA11821@atjola.homenet> <7vvdiftb0d.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20091017170421.GA10490@atjola.homenet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Junio C Hamano , Daniel Barkalow , James Pickens , Jeff King , Jay Soffian , Git Mailing List To: Julian Phillips X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 17 19:48:56 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MzDOh-0003Nz-MP for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:48:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753258AbZJQRsp convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:48:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753253AbZJQRsp (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:48:45 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:45154 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753252AbZJQRso (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:48:44 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2009 17:48:48 -0000 Received: from i59F5B216.versanet.de (EHLO atjola.homenet) [89.245.178.22] by mail.gmx.net (mp069) with SMTP; 17 Oct 2009 19:48:48 +0200 X-Authenticated: #5039886 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX186i0EOX6E6Y9f+y2YJc2W7b/5YDTVQNEzqO58zkK Yb2h53bK6XnhsJ Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.59 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2009.10.17 18:35:38 +0100, Julian Phillips wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote: > >Do you have multiple (annotated) tags for the same commit? >=20 > Potentially, yes. Releasing isn't the only thing that requires > keeping track of things. It's even possible that the person > creating the newer tag doesn't yet know that a release tag has been > applied if the person who applied it hasn't yet pushed it back. OK, I'd consider that namespace pollution, as things like "this-version-sucks" doesn't seem like it show go into public repos, bu= t anyway. If your release tags fix into a certain "unique" format, you could use describe with --match, like: git describe --match 'v[0-9]*' > >Otherwise, I don't see why "git describe HEAD" should print the > >wrong one. If there's a tag that can be resolved to the same > >commit that HEAD can be resolved, then "git describe HEAD" must > >output that one. Otherwise, that'd be a clear bug to me. >=20 > Oh, definately no bug. git describe works exactly as expected, the > problem is that the tag checked out isn't always the latest tag > applied to that commit. I misworded that one. Should be "If there's only tag that can be ...". IOW it was meant for "only one tag per commit", which is what I assumed to be the case. Bj=F6rn