{"thread":{"id":"49113","subject":"Suggestion: \"git describe\" pretty format","startedAt":"2018-08-13T14:33:42Z","lastAt":"2018-08-13T14:33:42Z","messageCount":1,"participants":["Christoph Groth"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"355360","messageId":"87a7pq9wc7.fsf@grothesque.org","threadId":"49113","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Suggestion: \"git describe\" pretty format","fromName":"Christoph Groth","fromEmail":"christoph@grothesque.org","sentAt":"2018-08-13T14:26:16Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T14:33:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christoph@grothesque.org","avatar":null},"body":"Hi,\n\nMany projects use 'git archive' to generate tarballs, especially because\nthis functionality is exposed through gitlab/github and the like.  It's\nalso popular to base the version string on the output of 'git describe'\nand its variants, for example 'git describe --first-parent --dirty'.\n\nNow while it's possible to substitute various information into the\ntarball using the export-subst machinery, there seems to be no way to\nsubstitute the output of 'git describe' and its variants.  Specifically,\nwhen the commit being archived is untagged, there seems no way to\nmention an ancestral tag in the way of 'git describe'.\n\nIt seems to me that adding a pretty format for git describe would be\nvery useful.  Is there any technical reason that speaks against this?\n\nCheers,\nChristoph\n"}]}