Re: name-ref on annotated-tags is null terminated, but lightweight tags arent
- From
- Max Resnick <max.resnick@forgerock.com>
- Date
- Jun 5, 2020, 17:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20200605171607.rducvc4xretxacn5@forgemax.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqa71ho34p.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
Thanks Junio for the quick response.
> Presumably the long hexadecimal are supposed to be on the same line > as the "name-rev" command itself?
Yes, sorry I didn't see that the formatting was broken before I sent.
> The suffix "^0" (which has nothing to do > with null-termination) means "I do not mean the tag object itself, > but the object that is pointed by it".
Ok, thanks. I need to unpack that a bit more. I tried to dig around in the man to see if there was indication if that's what was expected but didn't find anything at less for name-rev.
On 20/06/05 10:04AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 31 quoted lines
> Max Resnick <max.resnick@forgerock.com> writes: > > > What did you do before the bug happened? (Steps to reproduce your issue) > > I was using name-rev to resolve a commits tag name. Annotated tags seem > > to have a null termination and lightweight tags dont. > > > ❯ git name-rev --tag --name-only > > 38bdebc9107cab4ab3718d0581632702e74d9209 > > annotated-tag^0 > > > > /tmp/null-termination-issue on master > > ❯ git name-rev --tag --name-only > > a340894d3ee655ae6c336a85b42d2215d52609e3 > > lightweight-tag > > Presumably the long hexadecimal are supposed to be on the same line > as the "name-rev" command itself? > > There is nothing broken in the above output. The anotated tag > (annotated-tag in your example) is an object that merely points at > another object (in which case, the object whose name is 38bdebc9, > which I guess would be a commit) and it itself has an object name > different from 38bdebc9. The suffix "^0" (which has nothing to do > with null-termination) means "I do not mean the tag object itself, > but the object that is pointed by it". > > On the other hand, your lightweight-tag is directly pointing at the > object a340894d, so saying "lightweight-tag" is sufficient, as there > is no extra layer of indirection (i.e. a tag object) involved. > > Hope it helps.