Re: [PATCH] git-submodule: Try harder to describe the status of a submodule

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Emil Medve <Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com> writes:

> Some repositories might not use/have annotated tags (for example repositories created with
> git-cvsimport) or might not have tags at all and could cause git-submodule status to fail because
> git-describe might fail.
>
> This change makes git-submodule status try harder in displaying the status of a module by
> considering lightweight tags, subsequent tags and branches.

Why are we suddenly seeing these loooooooong lines...

> +get_revname()
> +{
> +	_revname=$(git-describe --tags "$1" 2>/dev/null || git-describe --contains "$1" 2>/dev/null)
> +	if test -z "$_revname" -o "$_revname" = "undefined"
> +	then
> +		_revname=$(git-describe --all "$1" 2>/dev/null | cut -d / -f2-)
> +		test -z "$_revname" && _revname=undefined
> +	fi

I really do not think using --all is useful.  If you do not have
a tag and the rev cannot be described, what damage does it incur?

We still say "$sha1 $path" in the output anyway, and ($revname)
is only "it makes it nicer" appendix.

> @@ -155,7 +174,7 @@ modules_list()
>  			say "-$sha1 $path"
>  			continue;
>  		fi
> -		revname=$(unset GIT_DIR && cd "$path" && git-describe $sha1)
> +		revname=$(unset GIT_DIR && cd "$path" && get_revname $sha1)
>  		if git diff-files --quiet -- "$path"
>  		then
>  			say " $sha1 $path ($revname)"

In that sense, I would prefer mine much better. If a rev is
indescribable, your version would say:

	" dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd subdir (undefined)"

while mine would have said:

	" dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd subdir"