Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
Heh, we've just been putting together 'versioner' for some software and
when git-describe fails we substitute in the complete sha1 at that
point. Based mostly on the "who'd release something versioned without
tagging anyhow". I think either the full sha1 or _just_ the gNNNNN
without prefix would be fine.
-apw
-
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