"Santi Béjar" <sbejar@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Why can't you solve it? Your example of two people giving the
>> same name to different things shows a lack of communication
>> between developers, and as long as you and the other guy are
>> talking with each other the problem can be solved, can't it?
>
> But there are times when you can't/don't want to communicate
> (private/testing/forks, whatever).
>
> Anyway, even if this problem is solved I feel more confortable
> with a version in my binary (and output) with a descriptive
> name and a revision id.
As I think about it more, I think that such a lack of communication is
not something "git describe" should even claim to help working around.
But a uniform-looking describe output does have certain
attractiveness:
$ git describe --long 31e0b2c 6c0f869
v1.5.4.3-0-g31e0b2c
v1.5.4.3-1-g6c0f869
So I have quite a big problem with your commit log message, even
though I am starting to like what it does. Perhaps this would be more
to the point.
git-describe: --long shows the object name even for a tagged commit
This is useful when you want to see parts of the commit object name
in "describe" output, even when the commit in question happens to be
a tagged version. Instead of just emitting the tag name, it will
describe such a commit as v1.2-0-deadbeef (0th commit since tag v1.2
that points at object deadbeef....).
By the way, I do not think "long" is what it does. It does not even
show the full object name unless you tell it to with another option
(i.e. --abbrev). The flag tells the command to use the normal output
format that is used to describe most other commits (untagged ones),
and signal the "taggedness" with the count part being "-0-".
Perhaps --nonexact-format, or even --redundant-output?
Hmmmmm... "--always-count", as it is about always using the counted
format (which is the "normal" output format)?
I know, I am bad at naming, so I'll park the commit in 'pu',
with option name kept as "--long" as in your patch.
-
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
