Re: Bug report: %h for abbreviated hashes broken after 1.7.1

[Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1819 bytes --]

Marcus Comstedt wrote:
> Todd A. Jacobs <tjacobs <at> si2services.com> writes:
>
>> Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to explain further. I guess
>> I still don't understand how both the patch and the tag are both on
>> the master branch:
>>
>>     $ git branch --contains v1.7.2.2
>>     * master
>>
>>     $ git branch --contains 35039ce
>>     * master
>
> The commit tagged with v1.7.2.2 is on the master branch because
> it was merged there.  The tag was not cut from the master branch
> but from the maint branch.  You are fooled by git branch here because
> you display only your local branches, and you don't have a local
> maint branch.  Add -r to the command, and you will see the commits
> are in multiple branches at origin.
>
> I'm afraid the git command line tools are rather unhelpful in these
> cases (it's hard to find the answer if you don't already know it),
> but gitk allows you to see it quite nicely.  Run "gitk origin/master",
> and search for 35039ce.  You'll see the commit being made on a topic
> branch, which is merged into master (the leftmost track) on 2010-08-18.
> You can also clearly see v1.7.2.2 being cut from maint (the track
> immediately to the right of master) on 2010-08-20, shortly after which
> maint is merged into master (c11969), which is why master "contains"
> 8c67c3, which is what you're really looking for when you say
> "--contains v1.7.2.2".

In cases like this I find tag --contains handy:

    $ git tag --contains 35039ce

Returns nothing, as no tag has 35039ce.

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones who need
the advice.
    -- Bill Cosby


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 542 bytes --]