On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Santi Béjar" <sbejar@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > 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....). > I think it's find, and to the point. Thanks. > 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 call it --long for longformat, maybe --longformat, --always-long, --always-normal. > > 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. Me too. Santi - 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
