Web lists-archives.com

Re: "git describe" documentation and behavior mismatch




On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Daniel Knittl-Frank
<knittl89@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> […]
>
> Running the above commands in the git.git repository yields a different result:
>
>>     $ git describe --all --abbrev=4 v1.0.5^2
>>     v1.0.0-21-g975b3
>
> No "reference path" to see. It is however shown, when the output is a
> branch name:
>
>>     $ git describe --all --abbrev=4 origin/next
>>     heads/next
>
> Is this expected behavior? IOW is the documentation outdated or is the
> git describe command misbehaving?

Bisecting history goes as far back as Feb 2008: commit
212945d4a85dfa172ea55ec73b1d830ef2d8582f

> Teach git-describe to verify annotated tag names before output

The warning mentioned in the commit message has since been gone. So I
guess the documentation is outdated? Nobody has complained for the
past 9 years, so we could call this a "feature" :)

An interesting fact (and intentional behavior?) is that describing a
commit with only a lightweight tag will properly display the tags/
prefix. I assume this is because the annotated tags only store the
tagname without any ref namespace, which is then picked up by git
describe and displayed.

I will try to come up with a patch for the man page.

Daniel

-- 
typed with http://neo-layout.org