Am 17.02.21 um 19:38 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> I wonder, in addition to "match" and "exclude", if we want to allow
> "always" as well.
I added "match" because that describe option is used by GIT-VERSION-GEN,
so I imagine it's generally useful for version names in spec files. Not
sure why I misspelled it "merge" in the subject, though. o_O
"exclude" is not in there, but I threw it in anyway, as the example in
77d21f29ea (describe: teach describe negative pattern matches,
2017-01-18) made sense to me. It complements "match" nicely.
I had "always" in proof-of-concept patch because I hadn't decided what
to do with commits that git describe doesn't find a description for,
and wanted to check the full output of git log --pretty='%(describe)'.
For a release tarball of a repo that lacks tags it would be easier to
use %h instead of %(describe:always) -- or tag the release.
That's why I didn't include "always" in the latest patches, but if it
turns out to be useful for someone then I wouldn't them adding it.
> Also, looking further into the future, I wonder if we should aim to
> eventually unify %h and %H as well as %(describe) into one,
> i.e. various ways to spell a commit object name, given that there is
> a separate effort underway to unify pretty and for-each-ref format
> strings.
>
> E.g. %(objectname) is the same as %H, and %(objectname:short) is the
> same as %h, so this might be %(objectname:describe), or something
> along the line.
According to the glossary and object name is:
The unique identifier of an object. The
object name is usually represented by a 40 character
hexadecimal string. Also colloquially called SHA-1.
And that's how I understand it as well. The object layer with it's
hashes on one hand and descriptions based on refs and commit relations
on the other are separate things in my mind. %(describe) falling back
to %h when :always is given makes sense to me; %(objectname) "falling
forward" to show describe output feels like a layering violation.
René
