Re: feature request: git-log should accept sth like v2.6.26-rc8-227

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1356 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Toralf Förster wrote:

> At Thursday 10 July 2008 21:29:07 Johannes Schindelin wrote :
> 
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Toralf Förster wrote:
> > 
> > > I appended those strings to the names of my UML kernel executables. 
> > > Unfortunately I didn't used the commit id and now I'm wondering 
> > > whether git could accept v2.6.26-rc9-56 as well in future.
> > 
> > If that were unambiguous, yes.  But it is not.
> 
> Ok, following the thread I understand why this feature isn't wanted by 
> all. But for the given example (where I only pulled from another git 
> tree) this could work, isn't it : ?
> 
> tfoerste@n22 ~/devel/linux-2.6 $ git-log v2.6.26-rc9.. | perl -e '@c = grep { /^commit/ } <>; print map { $#c - $i++ . "\t" . $_ } @c'

The question is not so much if it would work, but what people would do 
with this.  They would probably include something in a mail to you like 
"v2.6.26-rc9-111 stopped working!", you would test "v2.6.26-rc9-111" and 
go back "but it still works!".

Because you are talking about two different things.

So, in what workflow would v2.6.26-rc9-111 actually be helpful?  For 
yourself working in your own lil' branch?  I do not think so.  HEAD~23 is 
much more helpful in that case, since locally, you do not work so much 
relative to a given tag, but relative to your current HEAD.

Hth,
Dscho