Re: "git describe" documentation and behavior mismatch
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 20:26:26 +0100
- From: Daniel Knittl-Frank <knittl89@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: "git describe" documentation and behavior mismatch
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Daniel Knittl-Frank
> Running the above commands in the git.git repository yields a different result:
>> $ git describe --all --abbrev=4 v1.0.5^2
> No "reference path" to see. It is however shown, when the output is a
> branch name:
>> $ git describe --all --abbrev=4 origin/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 IOW is the documentation outdated or is the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
> 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guess the documentation is outdated?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.
typed with http://neo-layout.org