On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 04:59:52PM +0000, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > If the caller supplies --tags they want the lightweight, unannotated > tags to be searched for a match. If a lightweight tag is closer > in the history, it should be matched, even if an annotated tag is > reachable further back in the commit chain. > > The same applies with --all when matching any other type of ref. > > Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > This come out of the discussions earlier last week, where folks > were confused about the meaning of --tags and wanted to see it > behave as they expected, which was to match the nearest tag, > no matter its "type". > > The code is unchanged from what I sent out before, but now it has > updated test vectors and a commit message. > > Thoughts? I would like to see an enhanced information in the documentation so that people remember that lightweight tags are not meant to be constant over time and that's a bad idea to use them. What the discussion showed, is that the people don't know about annotated tags, and git-describe should have a stub of documentation that points to git-tag(1) so that people learn about it. Apart from that, it feels fine. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpksUIN5jqUo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
