Re: Possible regression in ref advertisement

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2013, 18:31 UTC
Message-ID: <7vvc9gxn2y.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1361811516.3212.14.camel@centaur.cmartin.tk>

Carlos Martín Nieto <cmn@elego.de> writes:

Show 27 quoted lines

> Hi all,
>
> When testing to see if a different implementation was in shape, I came
> across something odd where newer git doesn't advertise one of the refs
> in the git repo.
>
> Running `git ls-remote .` or `git-upload-pack` in my git repo, newer git
> versions omit peeling the v1.8.0-rc3 tag.
>
> The diff between the command above when ran with 1.7.10.4 (from Debian)
> and current 'master'
>
> --- old 2013-02-25 17:31:29.583526606 +0100
> +++ new 2013-02-25 17:31:36.783526559 +0100
> @@ -1379,7 +1379,6 @@
>  c15295d7477ccec489953299bd03a8e62f86e611       refs/tags/v1.8.0-rc2
>  cd46259ebf2e624bcee2aaae05c36663d414e1a2       refs/tags/v1.8.0-rc2^{}
>  22ed067acc84eac8a0a72d20478a18aee4e25571       refs/tags/v1.8.0-rc3
> -87a5461fa7b30f7b7baf27204f10219d61500fbf       refs/tags/v1.8.0-rc3^{}
>  bfeb8b9ae0012cb61e026cbcd29664876abf5389       refs/tags/v1.8.0.1
>  ed9fe755130891fc878bb2433204faffb534697b       refs/tags/v1.8.0.1^{}
>  63add1fb45e1ab7a76bb38bbb9467c91fdfaaa7e       refs/tags/v1.8.0.2
>
> Diffing with the output from next, diff tells me it's binary for some
> reason, but looking manually, the peeled v1.8.0-rc3 tag isn't there
> either. I haven't had time to bisect this, so I'm putting it out there
> in case anybody wants to investigate before I have time to dig into it.

Interesting. "git ls-remote . | grep 1.8.0-" for maint, master, next and pu produce identical results for me, all showing peeled ones correctly.