git-commit-vandalism/Documentation/git-describe.txt

212 lines
8.1 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

git-describe(1)
===============
NAME
----
builtin/describe.c: describe a blob Sometimes users are given a hash of an object and they want to identify it further (ex.: Use verify-pack to find the largest blobs, but what are these? or [1]) When describing commits, we try to anchor them to tags or refs, as these are conceptually on a higher level than the commit. And if there is no ref or tag that matches exactly, we're out of luck. So we employ a heuristic to make up a name for the commit. These names are ambiguous, there might be different tags or refs to anchor to, and there might be different path in the DAG to travel to arrive at the commit precisely. When describing a blob, we want to describe the blob from a higher layer as well, which is a tuple of (commit, deep/path) as the tree objects involved are rather uninteresting. The same blob can be referenced by multiple commits, so how we decide which commit to use? This patch implements a rather naive approach on this: As there are no back pointers from blobs to commits in which the blob occurs, we'll start walking from any tips available, listing the blobs in-order of the commit and once we found the blob, we'll take the first commit that listed the blob. For example git describe --tags v0.99:Makefile conversion-901-g7672db20c2:Makefile tells us the Makefile as it was in v0.99 was introduced in commit 7672db20. The walking is performed in reverse order to show the introduction of a blob rather than its last occurrence. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/223678/which-commit-has-this-blob Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-11-16 03:00:39 +01:00
git-describe - Give an object a human readable name based on an available ref
SYNOPSIS
--------
[verse]
'git describe' [--all] [--tags] [--contains] [--abbrev=<n>] [<commit-ish>...]
Teach "git describe" --dirty option With the --dirty option, git describe works on HEAD but append s"-dirty" iff the contents of the work tree differs from HEAD. E.g. $ git describe --dirty v1.6.5-15-gc274db7 $ echo >> Makefile $ git describe --dirty v1.6.5-15-gc274db7-dirty The --dirty option can also be used to specify what is appended, instead of the default string "-dirty". $ git describe --dirty=.mod v1.6.5-15-gc274db7.mod Many build scripts use `git describe` to produce a version number based on the description of HEAD (on which the work tree is based) + saying that if the build contains uncommitted changes. This patch helps the writing of such scripts since `git describe --dirty` does directly the intended thing. Three possiblities were considered while discussing this new feature: 1. Describe the work tree by default and describe HEAD only if "HEAD" is explicitly specified Pro: does the right thing by default (both for users and for scripts) Pro: other git commands that works on the work tree by default Con: breaks existing scripts used by the Linux kernel and other projects 2. Use --worktree instead of --dirty Pro: does what it says: "git describe --worktree" describes the work tree Con: other commands do not require a --worktree option when working on the work tree (it often is the default mode for them) Con: unusable with an optional value: "git describe --worktree=.mod" is quite unintuitive. 3. Use --dirty as in this patch Pro: makes sense to specify an optional value (what the dirty mark is) Pro: does not have any of the big cons of previous alternatives * does not break scripts * is not inconsistent with other git commands This patch takes the third approach. Signed-off-by: Jean Privat <jean@pryen.org> Acked-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-10-21 15:35:22 +02:00
'git describe' [--all] [--tags] [--contains] [--abbrev=<n>] --dirty[=<mark>]
builtin/describe.c: describe a blob Sometimes users are given a hash of an object and they want to identify it further (ex.: Use verify-pack to find the largest blobs, but what are these? or [1]) When describing commits, we try to anchor them to tags or refs, as these are conceptually on a higher level than the commit. And if there is no ref or tag that matches exactly, we're out of luck. So we employ a heuristic to make up a name for the commit. These names are ambiguous, there might be different tags or refs to anchor to, and there might be different path in the DAG to travel to arrive at the commit precisely. When describing a blob, we want to describe the blob from a higher layer as well, which is a tuple of (commit, deep/path) as the tree objects involved are rather uninteresting. The same blob can be referenced by multiple commits, so how we decide which commit to use? This patch implements a rather naive approach on this: As there are no back pointers from blobs to commits in which the blob occurs, we'll start walking from any tips available, listing the blobs in-order of the commit and once we found the blob, we'll take the first commit that listed the blob. For example git describe --tags v0.99:Makefile conversion-901-g7672db20c2:Makefile tells us the Makefile as it was in v0.99 was introduced in commit 7672db20. The walking is performed in reverse order to show the introduction of a blob rather than its last occurrence. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/223678/which-commit-has-this-blob Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-11-16 03:00:39 +01:00
'git describe' <blob>
DESCRIPTION
-----------
The command finds the most recent tag that is reachable from a
commit. If the tag points to the commit, then only the tag is
shown. Otherwise, it suffixes the tag name with the number of
additional commits on top of the tagged object and the
abbreviated object name of the most recent commit. The result
is a "human-readable" object name which can also be used to
identify the commit to other git commands.
By default (without --all or --tags) `git describe` only shows
annotated tags. For more information about creating annotated tags
see the -a and -s options to linkgit:git-tag[1].
builtin/describe.c: describe a blob Sometimes users are given a hash of an object and they want to identify it further (ex.: Use verify-pack to find the largest blobs, but what are these? or [1]) When describing commits, we try to anchor them to tags or refs, as these are conceptually on a higher level than the commit. And if there is no ref or tag that matches exactly, we're out of luck. So we employ a heuristic to make up a name for the commit. These names are ambiguous, there might be different tags or refs to anchor to, and there might be different path in the DAG to travel to arrive at the commit precisely. When describing a blob, we want to describe the blob from a higher layer as well, which is a tuple of (commit, deep/path) as the tree objects involved are rather uninteresting. The same blob can be referenced by multiple commits, so how we decide which commit to use? This patch implements a rather naive approach on this: As there are no back pointers from blobs to commits in which the blob occurs, we'll start walking from any tips available, listing the blobs in-order of the commit and once we found the blob, we'll take the first commit that listed the blob. For example git describe --tags v0.99:Makefile conversion-901-g7672db20c2:Makefile tells us the Makefile as it was in v0.99 was introduced in commit 7672db20. The walking is performed in reverse order to show the introduction of a blob rather than its last occurrence. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/223678/which-commit-has-this-blob Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-11-16 03:00:39 +01:00
If the given object refers to a blob, it will be described
as `<commit-ish>:<path>`, such that the blob can be found
at `<path>` in the `<commit-ish>`, which itself describes the
first commit in which this blob occurs in a reverse revision walk
from HEAD.
OPTIONS
-------
<commit-ish>...::
Commit-ish object names to describe. Defaults to HEAD if omitted.
Teach "git describe" --dirty option With the --dirty option, git describe works on HEAD but append s"-dirty" iff the contents of the work tree differs from HEAD. E.g. $ git describe --dirty v1.6.5-15-gc274db7 $ echo >> Makefile $ git describe --dirty v1.6.5-15-gc274db7-dirty The --dirty option can also be used to specify what is appended, instead of the default string "-dirty". $ git describe --dirty=.mod v1.6.5-15-gc274db7.mod Many build scripts use `git describe` to produce a version number based on the description of HEAD (on which the work tree is based) + saying that if the build contains uncommitted changes. This patch helps the writing of such scripts since `git describe --dirty` does directly the intended thing. Three possiblities were considered while discussing this new feature: 1. Describe the work tree by default and describe HEAD only if "HEAD" is explicitly specified Pro: does the right thing by default (both for users and for scripts) Pro: other git commands that works on the work tree by default Con: breaks existing scripts used by the Linux kernel and other projects 2. Use --worktree instead of --dirty Pro: does what it says: "git describe --worktree" describes the work tree Con: other commands do not require a --worktree option when working on the work tree (it often is the default mode for them) Con: unusable with an optional value: "git describe --worktree=.mod" is quite unintuitive. 3. Use --dirty as in this patch Pro: makes sense to specify an optional value (what the dirty mark is) Pro: does not have any of the big cons of previous alternatives * does not break scripts * is not inconsistent with other git commands This patch takes the third approach. Signed-off-by: Jean Privat <jean@pryen.org> Acked-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-10-21 15:35:22 +02:00
--dirty[=<mark>]::
--broken[=<mark>]::
Describe the state of the working tree. When the working
tree matches HEAD, the output is the same as "git describe
HEAD". If the working tree has local modification "-dirty"
is appended to it. If a repository is corrupt and Git
cannot determine if there is local modification, Git will
error out, unless `--broken' is given, which appends
the suffix "-broken" instead.
Teach "git describe" --dirty option With the --dirty option, git describe works on HEAD but append s"-dirty" iff the contents of the work tree differs from HEAD. E.g. $ git describe --dirty v1.6.5-15-gc274db7 $ echo >> Makefile $ git describe --dirty v1.6.5-15-gc274db7-dirty The --dirty option can also be used to specify what is appended, instead of the default string "-dirty". $ git describe --dirty=.mod v1.6.5-15-gc274db7.mod Many build scripts use `git describe` to produce a version number based on the description of HEAD (on which the work tree is based) + saying that if the build contains uncommitted changes. This patch helps the writing of such scripts since `git describe --dirty` does directly the intended thing. Three possiblities were considered while discussing this new feature: 1. Describe the work tree by default and describe HEAD only if "HEAD" is explicitly specified Pro: does the right thing by default (both for users and for scripts) Pro: other git commands that works on the work tree by default Con: breaks existing scripts used by the Linux kernel and other projects 2. Use --worktree instead of --dirty Pro: does what it says: "git describe --worktree" describes the work tree Con: other commands do not require a --worktree option when working on the work tree (it often is the default mode for them) Con: unusable with an optional value: "git describe --worktree=.mod" is quite unintuitive. 3. Use --dirty as in this patch Pro: makes sense to specify an optional value (what the dirty mark is) Pro: does not have any of the big cons of previous alternatives * does not break scripts * is not inconsistent with other git commands This patch takes the third approach. Signed-off-by: Jean Privat <jean@pryen.org> Acked-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-10-21 15:35:22 +02:00
--all::
Instead of using only the annotated tags, use any ref
found in `refs/` namespace. This option enables matching
any known branch, remote-tracking branch, or lightweight tag.
--tags::
Instead of using only the annotated tags, use any tag
found in `refs/tags` namespace. This option enables matching
a lightweight (non-annotated) tag.
--contains::
Instead of finding the tag that predates the commit, find
the tag that comes after the commit, and thus contains it.
Automatically implies --tags.
--abbrev=<n>::
Instead of using the default number of hexadecimal digits (which
will vary according to the number of objects in the repository with
a default of 7) of the abbreviated object name, use <n> digits, or
as many digits as needed to form a unique object name. An <n> of 0
will suppress long format, only showing the closest tag.
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
--candidates=<n>::
Instead of considering only the 10 most recent tags as
candidates to describe the input commit-ish consider
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
up to <n> candidates. Increasing <n> above 10 will take
slightly longer but may produce a more accurate result.
An <n> of 0 will cause only exact matches to be output.
--exact-match::
Only output exact matches (a tag directly references the
supplied commit). This is a synonym for --candidates=0.
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
--debug::
Verbosely display information about the searching strategy
being employed to standard error. The tag name will still
be printed to standard out.
--long::
Always output the long format (the tag, the number of commits
and the abbreviated commit name) even when it matches a tag.
This is useful when you want to see parts of the commit object name
in "describe" output, even when the commit in question happens to be
a tagged version. Instead of just emitting the tag name, it will
describe such a commit as v1.2-0-gdeadbee (0th commit since tag v1.2
that points at object deadbee....).
--match <pattern>::
Only consider tags matching the given `glob(7)` pattern,
excluding the "refs/tags/" prefix. If used with `--all`, it also
considers local branches and remote-tracking references matching the
pattern, excluding respectively "refs/heads/" and "refs/remotes/"
prefix; references of other types are never considered. If given
multiple times, a list of patterns will be accumulated, and tags
matching any of the patterns will be considered. Use `--no-match` to
clear and reset the list of patterns.
--exclude <pattern>::
Do not consider tags matching the given `glob(7)` pattern, excluding
the "refs/tags/" prefix. If used with `--all`, it also does not consider
local branches and remote-tracking references matching the pattern,
excluding respectively "refs/heads/" and "refs/remotes/" prefix;
references of other types are never considered. If given multiple times,
a list of patterns will be accumulated and tags matching any of the
patterns will be excluded. When combined with --match a tag will be
considered when it matches at least one --match pattern and does not
match any of the --exclude patterns. Use `--no-exclude` to clear and
reset the list of patterns.
--always::
Show uniquely abbreviated commit object as fallback.
--first-parent::
Follow only the first parent commit upon seeing a merge commit.
This is useful when you wish to not match tags on branches merged
in the history of the target commit.
EXAMPLES
--------
With something like git.git current tree, I get:
[torvalds@g5 git]$ git describe parent
v1.0.4-14-g2414721
i.e. the current head of my "parent" branch is based on v1.0.4,
but since it has a few commits on top of that,
describe has added the number of additional commits ("14") and
an abbreviated object name for the commit itself ("2414721")
at the end.
The number of additional commits is the number
of commits which would be displayed by "git log v1.0.4..parent".
The hash suffix is "-g" + an unambigous abbreviation for the tip commit
of parent (which was `2414721b194453f058079d897d13c4e377f92dc6`). The
length of the abbreviation scales as the repository grows, using the
approximate number of objects in the repository and a bit of math
around the birthday paradox, and defaults to a minimum of 7.
The "g" prefix stands for "git" and is used to allow describing the version of
a software depending on the SCM the software is managed with. This is useful
in an environment where people may use different SCMs.
Doing a 'git describe' on a tag-name will just show the tag name:
[torvalds@g5 git]$ git describe v1.0.4
v1.0.4
With --all, the command can use branch heads as references, so
the output shows the reference path as well:
[torvalds@g5 git]$ git describe --all --abbrev=4 v1.0.5^2
tags/v1.0.0-21-g975b
[torvalds@g5 git]$ git describe --all --abbrev=4 HEAD^
heads/lt/describe-7-g975b
With --abbrev set to 0, the command can be used to find the
closest tagname without any suffix:
[torvalds@g5 git]$ git describe --abbrev=0 v1.0.5^2
tags/v1.0.0
Note that the suffix you get if you type these commands today may be
longer than what Linus saw above when he ran these commands, as your
Git repository may have new commits whose object names begin with
975b that did not exist back then, and "-g975b" suffix alone may not
be sufficient to disambiguate these commits.
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
SEARCH STRATEGY
---------------
For each commit-ish supplied, 'git describe' will first look for
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
a tag which tags exactly that commit. Annotated tags will always
be preferred over lightweight tags, and tags with newer dates will
always be preferred over tags with older dates. If an exact match
is found, its name will be output and searching will stop.
If an exact match was not found, 'git describe' will walk back
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
through the commit history to locate an ancestor commit which
has been tagged. The ancestor's tag will be output along with an
abbreviation of the input commit-ish's SHA-1. If `--first-parent` was
specified then the walk will only consider the first parent of each
commit.
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
If multiple tags were found during the walk then the tag which
has the fewest commits different from the input commit-ish will be
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
selected and output. Here fewest commits different is defined as
the number of commits which would be shown by `git log tag..input`
Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing. My prior version of git-describe ran very slowly on even reasonably sized projects like git.git and linux.git as it tended to identify a large number of possible tags and then needed to generate the revision list for each of those tags to sort them and select the best tag to describe the input commit. All we really need is the number of commits in the input revision which are not in the tag. We can generate these counts during the revision walking and tag matching loop by assigning a color to each tag and coloring the commits as we walk them. This limits us to identifying no more than 26 possible tags, as there is limited space available within the flags field of struct commit. The limitation of 26 possible tags is hopefully not going to be a problem in real usage, as most projects won't create 26 maintenance releases and merge them back into a development trunk after the development trunk was tagged with a release candidate tag. If that does occur git-describe will start to revert to its old behavior of using the newer maintenance release tag to describe the development trunk, rather than the development trunk's own tag. The suggested workaround would be to retag the development trunk's tip. However since even 26 possible tags can take a while to generate a description for on some projects I'm defaulting the limit to 10 but offering the user --candidates to increase the number of possible matches if they need a more accurate result. I specifically chose 10 for the default as it seems unlikely projects will have more than 10 maintenance releases merged into a development trunk before retagging the development trunk, and it seems to perform about the same on linux.git as v1.4.4.4 git-describe. A large amount of debugging information was also added during the development of this change, so I've left it in to be toggled on with --debug. It may be useful to the end user to help them understand why git-describe took one particular tag over another. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2007-01-13 23:30:53 +01:00
will be the smallest number of commits possible.
builtin/describe.c: describe a blob Sometimes users are given a hash of an object and they want to identify it further (ex.: Use verify-pack to find the largest blobs, but what are these? or [1]) When describing commits, we try to anchor them to tags or refs, as these are conceptually on a higher level than the commit. And if there is no ref or tag that matches exactly, we're out of luck. So we employ a heuristic to make up a name for the commit. These names are ambiguous, there might be different tags or refs to anchor to, and there might be different path in the DAG to travel to arrive at the commit precisely. When describing a blob, we want to describe the blob from a higher layer as well, which is a tuple of (commit, deep/path) as the tree objects involved are rather uninteresting. The same blob can be referenced by multiple commits, so how we decide which commit to use? This patch implements a rather naive approach on this: As there are no back pointers from blobs to commits in which the blob occurs, we'll start walking from any tips available, listing the blobs in-order of the commit and once we found the blob, we'll take the first commit that listed the blob. For example git describe --tags v0.99:Makefile conversion-901-g7672db20c2:Makefile tells us the Makefile as it was in v0.99 was introduced in commit 7672db20. The walking is performed in reverse order to show the introduction of a blob rather than its last occurrence. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/223678/which-commit-has-this-blob Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-11-16 03:00:39 +01:00
BUGS
----
Tree objects as well as tag objects not pointing at commits, cannot be described.
When describing blobs, the lightweight tags pointing at blobs are ignored,
but the blob is still described as <committ-ish>:<path> despite the lightweight
tag being favorable.
GIT
---
Part of the linkgit:git[1] suite