On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "anatoly techtonik" <techtonik@xxxxxxxxx> > > comment at end - Philip > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:52 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Randall S. Becker >>> <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2017-11-23 02:31 (GMT-05:00) anatoly techtonik wrote >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: Unify annotated and non-annotated tags >>>>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you would like to mimic output of "git show-ref", repeating >>>>>>> commits for each tag pointing to it and showing full tag name as >>>>>>> well, you could do something like this, for example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> for tag in $(git for-each-ref --format="%(refname)" refs/tags) >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> printf '%s %s\n' "$(git rev-parse $tag^0)" "$tag" >>>>>>> done >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope that helps a bit. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you use for-each-ref's --format option, you could do something >>>>>> like (pardon a long line): >>>>>> >>>>>> git for-each-ref >>>>>> --format='%(if)%(*objectname)%(then)%(*objectname)%(else)%(objectname)%(end) >>>>>> %(refname)' refs/tags >>>>>> >>>>>> without any loop, I would think. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. That helps. >>>>> So my proposal is to get rid of non-annotated tags, so to get all >>>>> tags with commits that they point to, one would use: >>>>> git for-each-ref --format='%(*objectname) %(refname)' refs/tags> >>>>> For so-called non-annotated tags just leave the message empty. >>>>> I don't see why anyone would need non-annotated tags though. >>>> >>>> >>>> I have seen non-annotated tags used in automations (not necessarily well >>>> written ones) that create tags as a record of automation activity. I am not >>>> sure we should be writing off the concept of unannotated tags entirely. This >>>> may cause breakage based on existing expectations of how tags work at >>>> present. My take is that tags should include whodunnit, even if it's just >>>> the version of the automation being used, but I don't always get to have my >>>> wishes fulfilled. In essence, whatever behaviour a non-annotated tag has now >>>> may need to be emulated in future even if reconciliation happens. An option >>>> to preserve empty tag compatibility with pre-2.16 behaviour, perhaps? Sadly, >>>> I cannot supply examples of this usage based on a human memory page-fault >>>> and NDAs. >>> >>> >>> Are there any windows for backward compatibility breaks, or git is >>> doomed to preserve it forever? >>> Automation without support won't survive for long, and people who rely >>> on that, like Chromium team, usually hard set the version used. >> >> >> Git is not doomed to preserve anything forever. We've gradually broken >> backwards compatibility for a few core things like these. >> >> However, just as a bystander reading this thread I haven't seen any >> compelling reason for why these should be removed. You initially had >> questions about how to extract info about them, which you got answers >> to. >> >> So what reasons remain for why they need to be removed? > > > To reduce complexity and prior knowledge when dealing with Git tags. > > For example, http://readthedocs.io/ site contains a lot of broken > "Edit on GitHub" links, for example - > http://git-memo.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ > > And it appeared that the reason for that is discrepancy between git > annotated and non-annotated tags. The pull request that fixes the issue > after it was researched and understood is simple > https://github.com/rtfd/readthedocs.org/pull/3302 > > However, while looking through linked issues and PRs, one can try to > imagine how many days it took for people to come up with the solution, > which came from this thread. > -- > anatoly t. > >>>>>>>> > > So if I understand correctly, the hope is that `git show-ref --tags` could > get an alternate option `--all-tags` [proper option name required...] such > that the user would not have to develop the rather over the complicated > expression that used a newish capability of a different command. > > Would that be right? That's correct. > Or at least update the man page docs to clarify the annotated vs > non-annotated tags issue (many SO questions!). Are there stats how many users read man pages and what is their reading session length? I mean docs may not help much, > And indicate if the --dereference and/or --hash options would do the trick! > - maybe the "^{}" appended would be part of the problem (and need that new > option "--objectreference" ). --dereference would work if it didn't require extra processing. It is hard to think about other option name that would give desired result. -- anatoly t.
