On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 09:34:36AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > The "-g$objectname" one is kind of clever, and definitely not something > > I had thought of. We already have "--long", and of course we'd show the > > long version for any name that isn't an exact match anyway. So as an > > added bonus, it seems unlikely to surprise anybody who is expecting the > > current "show the tag, not the refname" output (though again, this is > > rare enough that I think people simply expect them to be the same ;) ). > > There is one thing you may have brought up in the discussion but I > did not touch. Using v1.0-0-g0123456, based on tagname "v1.0" Bob > gave to it would still describe the right object, but if the user > forced "--no-long", it becomes unclear what we should do. I think "--no-long" is not "do not ever write a long name". It is "counteract an earlier request to _always_ print long names". I.e.: $ git describe --no-long v2.25.1^ v2.25.0-99-g6141e0cc00 still produces long output regardless of your patch. And if we continue to do so in the wrongly-named case (which your patch seems to), that would be consistent. > Another thing that is not satisfying is what should happen in "all" > mode. We add "tags/" prefix so in the case we've been discussing, > the output would be "tags/v1.0-0-g0123456", but the whole reason why > we add the prefix is to say that the early part of the name, "v1.0", > is a tag, and it would be natural to associate it with refs/tags/v1.0 > that is *not* Bob's tag. I agree that is not fantastic, but the same problem is there to some degree even without the "tags/" prefix. The prefix just makes you think more of the ref namespace. :) I think it's the best we can do, given that we'll also have just issued a warning. Speaking of which... > Having said all that, here is what I have at this moment. > [...] > While at it, remove an overly cautious dead code to protect against > an annotated tag object without the tagname. Such a tag is filtered > out much earlier in the codeflow, and will not reach this part of > the code. This patch also reverses the order of the warning from "is really" to "is externally known as", but I didn't see it mentioned in the commit message. -Peff
