From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F59F1F461 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 05:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729000AbfHTFuc (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:50:32 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:62281 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727006AbfHTFub (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:50:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9FC754FA; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:50:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9fmbvMI/uuT7YVZ5ycKADOolXkk=; b=nPIf/e nOE44akV0pntQ/HZfVah+wofaIBJycwNvtQLF+y/XLB2/IMd9Vvc6+W6SYqa9hbP ucVYL0+ePBcaF5alGpQ2v0Bq7YEaBeyBeSdza4UlAMU0TMrrIWb7NYNY2VPznlxO 4RXH9PDqE9QnBTHvnnQMGSqNm7elOyPIbmbAo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=tQPzpwcKN3NHt7wacI6F1m8lfaolzqHF z/xdh7LtXtfYnwxaxTMJdqFg4IRe2Bjhfh589Ks1ZxzM9gV6zaIhEH11UBhdPvLV AYQBRDLWrS6AS3WgL8+OT7EWZfzmqUOhrbWqgnnurDvcME/jXAKxqDg5ExNmhYmv beyGCryMXCA= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D0F754F9; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:50:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7FCA754F6; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:50:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Bryan Turner Cc: Git Users Subject: Re: Fully peel tags via for-each-ref? References: Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 22:50:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Bryan Turner's message of "Mon, 19 Aug 2019 16:22:05 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 68F993F2-C30E-11E9-86AB-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Bryan Turner writes: > Is there any way, with "git for-each-ref", to output the "fully" > peeled SHA of a tag's ultimate target, regardless of how many layers > must be traversed? I do not think I wrote it to allow different degree of peeling, not because I wanted to explicitly forbid a use case for tags that tag another tag, but simply because I didn't think of anybody using it and didn't see need to support such tags. If %(*) does not peel fully (I do not recall what I did offhand), because all other things in Git (like $X~0, $X^{tree}, etc.) fully peel the outer object until they get to what they want, it may even be OK to declare it a bug and "fix" the notation to fully peel tags. I dunno.