From: Jeff King Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 18:11:04 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] name-rev: include taggerdate in considering the best name Message-ID: <20160422181103.GA5920@sigill.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 03:39:01PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > We most likely want the oldest tag that contained the commit to be > reported. So let's remember the taggerdate, and make it more important > than anything else when choosing the best name for a given commit. > > Suggested by Linus Torvalds. > > Note that we need to update t9903 because it tested for the old behavior > (which preferred the description "b1~1" over "tags/t2~1"). > > We might want to introduce a --heed-taggerdate option, and make the new > behavior dependent on that, if it turns out that some scripts rely on the > old name-rev method. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin > --- > builtin/name-rev.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ > t/t9903-bash-prompt.sh | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) That turned out to be quite simple (I wasn't sure originally if we'd actually visit all of the tags, which is why I had conceived of this as an initial pass; but of course it makes sense that we'd have to see all of the tags in the existing code). I confirmed that it does find the "optimal" tag for the case we've been discussing. We could _also_ tweak the merge-weight as Linus's patch did, just because 10000 has more basis than 65535. But I think it really matters a lot less at this point. -Peff