From: Andy Whitcroft Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:43:46 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] describe: fall back to 'HEAD' if no appropriate tag exists Message-ID: <451242B2.7090508@shadowen.org> In-Reply-To: <7v8xkef97b.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> Now, if no tag exists to say something like '-gfffffff', say >> 'HEAD-gfffffff' instead of erroring out. >> >> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin >> --- >> describe.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/describe.c b/describe.c >> index ab192f8..8b08a3f 100644 >> --- a/describe.c >> +++ b/describe.c >> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static void describe(const char *arg, in >> return; >> } >> } >> - die("cannot describe '%s'", sha1_to_hex(cmit->object.sha1)); >> + printf("HEAD-g%s\n", find_unique_abbrev(cmit->object.sha1, abbrev)); >> } > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. > > At least with tags, the user can assume NAME-gREV means commit > whose abbrev is REV that is descendant of NAME. HEAD is not > necessarily so. > > Having said that, in order to avoid barfing, we have to have > something there, and HEAD is already special in many aspects > anyway (e.g. by only saying HEAD you cannot tell which branch's > tip you are talking about), it might be good enough. > > I am just wondering if there is some other obvious substitute > that is better than HEAD. "GIT-g%s" is not it ("g" already > stands for GIT). > > Another possibility is just to do > > puts(sha1_to_hex(cmit->object.sha1)) > > in this case. I tend to like that better somehow; it makes > things more explicit. Heh, we've just been putting together 'versioner' for some software and when git-describe fails we substitute in the complete sha1 at that point. Based mostly on the "who'd release something versioned without tagging anyhow". I think either the full sha1 or _just_ the gNNNNN without prefix would be fine. -apw