Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> Now, if no tag exists to say something like '<tag>-gfffffff', say
> 'HEAD-gfffffff' instead of erroring out.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>
> ---
> describe.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/describe.c b/describe.c
> index ab192f8..8b08a3f 100644
> --- a/describe.c
> +++ b/describe.c
> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static void describe(const char *arg, in
> return;
> }
> }
> - die("cannot describe '%s'", sha1_to_hex(cmit->object.sha1));
> + printf("HEAD-g%s\n", find_unique_abbrev(cmit->object.sha1, abbrev));
> }
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
At least with tags, the user can assume NAME-gREV means commit
whose abbrev is REV that is descendant of NAME. HEAD is not
necessarily so.
Having said that, in order to avoid barfing, we have to have
something there, and HEAD is already special in many aspects
anyway (e.g. by only saying HEAD you cannot tell which branch's
tip you are talking about), it might be good enough.
I am just wondering if there is some other obvious substitute
that is better than HEAD. "GIT-g%s" is not it ("g" already
stands for GIT).
Another possibility is just to do
puts(sha1_to_hex(cmit->object.sha1))
in this case. I tend to like that better somehow; it makes
things more explicit.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: 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