On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 05:45:15PM -0800, Tom Grennan wrote: > > Also, it's not symmetric. What if I say "git tag > > --points-at=my-lw-v1.7.9"? Then I would get your signed and > > annotated tags (even though they're _not_ saying anything about > > ny-lw-v1.7.9), and I would get v1.7.9 (even though it's not saying > > anything about it either; in fact, it's the opposite!). > > Huh? As you noted, the lightweight tag is just an alternate reference, > so why wouldn't want to see the annotated and signed tags of that common > object? > > $ ./git-tag -l --points-at tomg-lw-v1.7.9 > tomg-annotate-v1.7.9 > tomg-signed-v1.7.9 > v1.7.9 > $ ./git-tag -l --points-at v1.7.9 > tomg-annotate-v1.7.9 > tomg-lw-v1.7.9 > tomg-signed-v1.7.9 Sorry, I should have been more clear here (the word symmetric isn't right; it _is_ symmetric). My understanding of the point of your original feature was to mention things that talk about a tag (because you wanted to know what signatures were made around it). With tag objects this is easy, because they contain a pointer. But when it comes to lightweight tags, you cannot tell in which direction the "talking about" occurred[1]. That is, a lightweight tag of another tag is just creating a new ref, which looks the same as the old ref. So something like --points-at cannot say "X talks about Y", because it might as well have been "Y talks about X". So I think you are better off to mention both X and Y (or to mention neither). > > Your documentation says "Only list annotated or signed tags of the > > given object", which implies to me that --points-at is an arbitrary > > object specifier, not a specific tagname. > > Yes, I changed that in the patch that I've prepared but will revert this > if you'd rather not list these lightweight tags. I'm OK with not mentioning lightweight tags. I just feel it should be all-or-nothing. It was specifically the "given object" that I took issue with, since in your examples v1.7.9 was treated differently from its sha1. > My reaction when I tested this was, "don't tell me what I already know." > But consistency with $(git rev-parse ...) seems more important. > And as you noted, a sha1_array would save code and to me, less code is > always better. Thanks. Either I've convinced you, or I've made you so sick of the discussion that you're agreeing. The system works. :) -Peff [1] Actually, a tag object embeds the name of the ref under which it was originally created (so the refs/tags/v1.7.9 tag has a "tag v1.7.9" header in it). So in some cases, you _can_ determine the "original" ref of a lightweight tag versus other refs made about it later. I'm still not sure --points-at is a good place to try to make that distinction, though. -- 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