Hi, On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > Now you can say > > > > git --name-rev log > > I think this is wrong. I think it is not wrong. :-) > It may be a straightforward translation of > > > git log | git name-rev --stdin | less > > but that doesn't make it any more "correct". I use it also for other git commands, so this was very much on purpose. > Also, I doubt most people want every release named. You are probably right. But _I_ want to know that e.g. commit a025463bc0ec2c894a88f2dfb44cf88ba71bb712 is really tags/v1.4.0^0~27^2. Both are immutable, but the latter is nicer to people than to computers. > I think the common case would be that you want those releases named that > match heads (and tags in particular) _exactly_. If you want everything > named, maybe you want to do "--name-rev-all" or something. > > Hmm? > > (That would also likely perform a lot better) True. But then, you probably know which head it is, because you probably specified it yourself on the command line. Ciao, Dscho - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html