Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Coming back to the original topic, ...
>
>> If a tag describes a commit, we currently output not the tag's ref but
>> its embedded name. This means that when the tag is locally stored under
>> a different name, the output given cannot be used to access the tag in
>> any way. A warning is also emitted in this case, but the message is not
>> very enlightening:
>
> None of the above is wrong per-se, but the reason why we chose to
> use the real name of the tag in the tag object, while issuing a
> warning, was so that people can correct the mistake of storing an
> annotated tag A to a wrong refname Q. If "describe" gave a name
> based on refname Q, there is no incentive to correct the situation
> to use the right refname. The name that describes the commits
> relative to the real name of the A is *not* usable by design, until
> the refname is corrected (i.e. the tag is stored in the right
> place).
>
> So I am not 100% confident that the original patch is a good idea.
FWIW, this design came from 212945d4 ("Teach git-describe to verify
annotated tag names before output", 2008-02-28). Shawn was quite
explicit that use of the real name was deliberate:
If an annotated tag describes a commit we want to favor the name
listed in the body of the tag, rather than whatever name it has
been stored under locally. By doing so it is easier to converse
about tags with others, even if the tags happen to be fetched to
a different name than it was given by its creator.
and I tend to agree with the original rationale.
