"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

quoted text
> Yes, its very useful.  If you get two different describes at different
> times from a non-rewinding branch and they both come up with the same
> tag name, you can tell which is the 'newer' one by distance.  This is
> rather common in practice, so its incredibly useful.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
> ---
>  builtin-describe.c |    3 ++-
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin-describe.c b/builtin-describe.c
> index e7b8f95..d8ff621 100644
> --- a/builtin-describe.c
> +++ b/builtin-describe.c
> @@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ static void describe(const char *arg, int last_one)
>  				sha1_to_hex(gave_up_on->object.sha1));
>  		}
>  	}
> -	printf("%s-g%s\n", all_matches[0].name->path,
> +	printf("%s-%i-g%s\n", all_matches[0].name->path,
> +		   all_matches[0].depth,
>  		   find_unique_abbrev(cmit->object.sha1, abbrev));
>  
>  	if (!last_one)

Two comments.

 - This is purely style, but we seem to prefer %d instead of %i
   elsewhere in the code (three existing offenders are
   builtin-describe.c, receive-pack.c and sha1_file which we may
   want to clean up for consistency).

 - How much damage are we talking about with this patch to
   People's existing scripts?  I expect they all extract the
   hash from last -g (because they cannot rely on particular
   convention in tagnames), but I am also worried if people are
   expecting everything that comes before the last -g is the
   whole tag.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html