Re: Bootstrapping into git, commit gripes at me

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Jul 11, 2005, 23:03 UTC
Message-ID: <7vll4dndwu.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050711222046.GA21376@buici.com>

Marc Singer <elf@buici.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> I picked 2.6.12
>
>   # git checkout -f v2.6.12
>
> applied the patch and was greeted with an error about being unable to
> commit telling me that I LONG_HEX_NUMBER is not a valid commit object.
> Isn't 2.6.12 later than 2.6.12-rcX?

Aha. Marc is not doing anything wrong --- he is doing as he is told.

Linus, there is a bad interaction between tag objects and commits right now. For example:

 - we allow git-checkout-script with a tag; I think we store the tag
   object without dereferencing in .git/HEAD;

 - git-commit-tree says check_valid("commit") and barfs.

I think other things are covered already and the above two are the only remaining major ones. The merge-base command dereferences tags and produces a commit as its result. The rev-list command also derefs tags, so log and whatchanged would work sensibly.

My current preference is to keep .git/refs/heads tag free. At least, I do not think we should ever write non commits to .git/*_HEAD.

What do you think? An alternative would be to allow tags (recursively) pointing at a commit as a commit parent, but I do not think we would want to go that route.