At Friday 11 July 2008 16:44:23 Dmitry Potapov wrote :
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, following the thread I understand why this feature isn't wanted by all. But
> > for the given example (where I only pulled from another git tree) this could
> > work, isn't it : ?
> >
> > tfoerste@n22 ~/devel/linux-2.6 $ git-log v2.6.26-rc9.. | perl -e '@c = grep { /^commit/ } <>; print map { $#c - $i++ . "\t" . $_ } @c'
>
> No, it does not. Running your script, I have
>
> ...
> 56 commit 803a9067e19714ea7b7da760fe92f0d53bfa6994
> ...
>
> Now, let's see what git-describe thinks about it
> $ git describe 803a9067e19714ea7b7da760fe92f0d53bfa6994
> v2.6.26-rc9-38-g803a906
>
> Your script is obviously incorrect. It is written in the assumption that
> history is linear, but it is not. Even if you pull only from one repo,
> this repo still contains *many* branches. Along any branch, you may have
> the same number.
>
> Dmitry
>
Yes,
$> git-log v2.6.26-rc9.. --pretty=short | grep "^commit" | cut -f2 -d' ' | xargs -n 1 git describe | grep '\-56\-'
I used eventually to get the commit id for the (broken) UML kernel 2.6.26-rc9-56
--
MfG/Sincerely
Toralf Förster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
