summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t6120-describe.sh
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2019-12-09name-rev: eliminate recursion in name_rev()SZEDER Gábor
The name_rev() function calls itself recursively for each interesting parent of the commit it got as parameter, and, consequently, it can segfault when processing a deep history if it exhausts the available stack space. E.g. running 'git name-rev --all' and 'git name-rev HEAD~100000' in the gcc, gecko-dev, llvm, and WebKit repositories results in segfaults on my machine ('ulimit -s' reports 8192kB of stack size limit), and nowadays the former segfaults in the Linux repo as well (it reached the necessasry depth sometime between v5.3-rc4 and -rc5). Eliminate the recursion by inserting the interesting parents into a LIFO 'prio_queue' [1] and iterating until the queue becomes empty. Note that the parent commits must be added in reverse order to the LIFO 'prio_queue', so their relative order is preserved during processing, i.e. the first parent should come out first from the queue, because otherwise performance greatly suffers on mergy histories [2]. The stacksize-limited test 'name-rev works in a deep repo' in 't6120-describe.sh' demonstrated this issue and expected failure. Now the recursion is gone, so flip it to expect success. Also gone are the dmesg entries logging the segfault of that segfaulting 'git name-rev' process on every execution of the test suite. Note that this slightly changes the order of lines in the output of 'git name-rev --all', usually swapping two lines every 35 lines in git.git or every 150 lines in linux.git. This shouldn't matter in practice, because the output has always been unordered anyway. This patch is best viewed with '--ignore-all-space'. [1] Early versions of this patch used a 'commit_list', resulting in ~15% performance penalty for 'git name-rev --all' in 'linux.git', presumably because of the memory allocation and release for each insertion and removal. Using a LIFO 'prio_queue' has basically no effect on performance. [2] We prefer shorter names, i.e. 'v0.1~234' is preferred over 'v0.1^2~5', meaning that usually following the first parent of a merge results in the best name for its ancestors. So when later we follow the remaining parent(s) of a merge, and reach an already named commit, then we usually find that we can't give that commit a better name, and thus we don't have to visit any of its ancestors again. OTOH, if we were to follow the Nth parent of the merge first, then the name of all its ancestors would include a corresponding '^N'. Those are not the best names for those commits, so when later we reach an already named commit following the first parent of that merge, then we would have to update the name of that commit and the names of all of its ancestors as well. Consequently, we would have to visit many commits several times, resulting in a significant slowdown. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-12-06t6120: add a test to cover inner conditions in 'git name-rev's name_rev()SZEDER Gábor
In 'builtin/name-rev.c' in the name_rev() function there is a loop iterating over all parents of the given commit, and the loop body looks like this: if (parent_number > 1) { if (generation > 0) // branch #1 new_name = ... else // branch #2 new_name = ... name_rev(parent, new_name, ...); } else { // branch #3 name_rev(...); } These conditions are not covered properly in the test suite. As far as purely test coverage goes, they are all executed several times over in 't6120-describe.sh'. However, they don't directly influence the command's output, because the repository used in that test script contains several branches and tags pointing somewhere into the middle of the commit DAG, and thus result in a better name for the to-be-named commit. This can hide bugs: e.g. by replacing the 'new_name' parameter of the first recursive name_rev() call with 'tip_name' (effectively making both branch #1 and #2 a noop) 'git name-rev --all' shows thousands of bogus names in the Git repository, but the whole test suite still passes successfully. In an early version of a later patch in this series I managed to mess up all three branches (at once!), but the test suite still passed. So add a new test case that operates on the following history: A--------------master \ / \----------M2 \ / \---M1-C \ / B and names the commit 'B' to make sure that all three branches are crucial to determine 'B's name: - There is only a single ref, so all names are based on 'master', without any undesired interference from other refs. - Each time name_rev() follows the second parent of a merge commit, it appends "^2" to the name. Following 'master's second parent right at the start ensures that all commits on the ancestry path from 'master' to 'B' have a different base name from the original 'tip_name' of the very first name_rev() invocation. Currently, while name_rev() is recursive, it doesn't matter, but it will be necessary to properly cover all three branches after the recursion is eliminated later in this series. - Following 'M2's second parent makes sure that branch #2 (i.e. when 'generation = 0') affects 'B's name. - Following the only parent of the non-merge commit 'C' ensures that branch #3 affects 'B's name, and that it increments 'generation'. - Coming from 'C' 'generation' is 1, thus following 'M1's second parent makes sure that branch #1 affects 'B's name. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-12-06t6120-describe: modernize the 'check_describe' helperSZEDER Gábor
The 'check_describe' helper function runs 'git describe' outside of 'test_expect_success' blocks, with extra hand-rolled code to record and examine its exit code. Update this helper and move the 'git describe' invocation inside the 'test_expect_success' block. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-13t6120-describe: correct test repo history graph in commentSZEDER Gábor
At the top of 't6120-describe.sh' an ASCII graph illustrates the repository's history used in this test script. This graph is a bit misleading, because it swapped the second merge commit's first and second parents. When describing/naming a commit it does make a difference which parent is the first and which is the second/Nth, so update this graph to accurately represent that second merge. While at it, move this history graph from the 'test_description' variable to a regular comment. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-09-28name-rev: avoid cutoff timestamp underflowSZEDER Gábor
When 'git name-rev' is invoked with commit-ish parameters, it tries to save some work, and doesn't visit commits older than the committer date of the oldest given commit minus a one day worth of slop. Since our 'timestamp_t' is an unsigned type, this leads to a timestamp underflow when the committer date of the oldest given commit is within a day of the UNIX epoch. As a result the cutoff timestamp ends up far-far in the future, and 'git name-rev' doesn't visit any commits, and names each given commit as 'undefined'. Check whether subtracting the slop from the oldest committer date would lead to an underflow, and use no cutoff in that case. We don't have a TIME_MIN constant, dddbad728c (timestamp_t: a new data type for timestamps, 2017-04-26) didn't add one, so do it now. Note that the type of the cutoff timestamp variable used to be signed before 5589e87fd8 (name-rev: change a "long" variable to timestamp_t, 2017-05-20). The behavior was still the same even back then, but the underflow didn't happen when substracting the slop from the oldest committer date, but when comparing the signed cutoff timestamp with unsigned committer dates in name_rev(). IOW, this underflow bug is as old as 'git name-rev' itself. Helped-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-02-22tests: fix unportable "\?" and "\+" regex syntaxÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Fix widely supported but non-POSIX basic regex syntax introduced in [1] and [2]. On GNU, NetBSD and FreeBSD the following works: $ echo xy >f $ grep 'xy\?' f; echo $? xy 0 The same goes for "\+". The "?" and "+" syntax is not in the BRE syntax, just in ERE, but on some implementations it can be invoked by prefixing the meta-operator with "\", but not on OpenBSD: $ uname -a OpenBSD obsd.my.domain 6.2 GENERIC#132 amd64 $ grep --version grep version 0.9 $ grep 'xy\?' f; echo $? 1 Let's fix this by moving to ERE syntax instead, where "?" and "+" are universally supported: $ grep -E 'xy?' f; echo $? xy 0 1. 2ed5c8e174 ("describe: setup working tree for --dirty", 2019-02-03) 2. c801170b0c ("t6120: test for describe with a bare repository", 2019-02-03) Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-02-07Merge branch 'ss/describe-dirty-in-the-right-directory'Junio C Hamano
"git --work-tree=$there --git-dir=$here describe --dirty" did not work correctly as it did not pay attention to the location of the worktree specified by the user by mistake, which has been corrected. * ss/describe-dirty-in-the-right-directory: t6120: test for describe with a bare repository describe: setup working tree for --dirty
2019-02-04t6120: test for describe with a bare repositorySebastian Staudt
This ensures that nothing breaks the basic functionality of describe for bare repositories. Please note that --broken and --dirty need a working tree. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-02-04describe: setup working tree for --dirtySebastian Staudt
We don't use NEED_WORK_TREE when running the git-describe builtin, since you should be able to describe a commit even in a bare repository. However, the --dirty flag does need a working tree. Since we don't call setup_work_tree(), it uses whatever directory we happen to be in. That's unlikely to match our index, meaning we'd say "dirty" even when the real working tree is clean. We can fix that by calling setup_work_tree() once we know that the user has asked for --dirty. The --broken option also needs a working tree. But because its implementation calls git-diff-index we don‘t have to setup the working tree in the git-describe process. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Staudt <koraktor@gmail.com> Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-21tests: use 'test_must_be_empty' instead of 'test_cmp <empty> <out>'SZEDER Gábor
Using 'test_must_be_empty' is shorter and more idiomatic than >empty && test_cmp empty out as it saves the creation of an empty file. Furthermore, sometimes the expected empty file doesn't have such a descriptive name like 'empty', and its creation is far away from the place where it's finally used for comparison (e.g. in 't7600-merge.sh', where two expected empty files are created in the 'setup' test, but are used only about 500 lines later). These cases were found by instrumenting 'test_cmp' to error out the test script when it's used to compare empty files, and then converted manually. Note that even after this patch there still remain a lot of cases where we use 'test_cmp' to check empty files: - Sometimes the expected output is not hard-coded in the test, but 'test_cmp' is used to ensure that two similar git commands produce the same output, and that output happens to be empty, e.g. the test 'submodule update --merge - ignores --merge for new submodules' in 't7406-submodule-update.sh'. - Repetitive common tasks, including preparing the expected results and running 'test_cmp', are often extracted into a helper function, and some of this helper's callsites expect no output. - For the same reason as above, the whole 'test_expect_success' block is within a helper function, e.g. in 't3070-wildmatch.sh'. - Or 'test_cmp' is invoked in a loop, e.g. the test 'cvs update (-p)' in 't9400-git-cvsserver-server.sh'. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-14t: switch $_z40 to $ZERO_OIDbrian m. carlson
Switch all uses of $_z40 to $ZERO_OID so that they work correctly with larger hashes. This commit was created by using the following sed command to modify all files in the t directory except t/test-lib.sh: sed -i 's/\$_z40/$ZERO_OID/g' Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-02-27Merge branch 'sb/describe-blob'Junio C Hamano
"git describe $garbage" stopped giving any errors when the garbage happens to be a string with 40 hexadecimal letters. * sb/describe-blob: describe: confirm that blobs actually exist
2018-02-12describe: confirm that blobs actually existJeff King
Prior to 644eb60bd0 (builtin/describe.c: describe a blob, 2017-11-15), we noticed and complained about missing objects, since they were not valid commits: $ git describe 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 fatal: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is not a valid 'commit' object After that commit, we feed any non-commit to lookup_blob(), and complain only if it returns NULL. But the lookup_* functions do not actually look at the on-disk object database at all. They return an entry from the in-memory object hash if present (and if it matches the requested type), and otherwise auto-create a "struct object" of the requested type. A missing object would hit that latter case: we create a bogus blob struct, walk all of history looking for it, and then exit successfully having produced no output. One reason nobody may have noticed this is that some related cases do still work OK: 1. If we ask for a tree by sha1, then the call to lookup_commit_referecne_gently() would have parsed it, and we would have its true type in the in-memory object hash. 2. If we ask for a name that doesn't exist but isn't a 40-hex sha1, then get_oid() would complain before we even look at the objects at all. We can fix this by replacing the lookup_blob() call with a check of the true type via sha1_object_info(). This is not quite as efficient as we could possibly make this check. We know in most cases that the object was already parsed in the earlier commit lookup, so we could call lookup_object(), which does auto-create, and check the resulting struct's type (or NULL). However it's not worth the fragility nor code complexity to save a single object lookup. The new tests cover this case, as well as that of a tree-by-sha1 (which does work as described above, but was not explicitly tested). Noticed-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Acked-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-01-23Merge branch 'dk/describe-all-output-fix'Junio C Hamano
An old regression in "git describe --all $annotated_tag^0" has been fixed. * dk/describe-all-output-fix: describe: prepend "tags/" when describing tags with embedded name
2017-12-27describe: prepend "tags/" when describing tags with embedded nameDaniel Knittl-Frank
The man page of the "git describe" command explains the expected output when using the --all option, i.e. the full reference path is shown, including heads/ or tags/ prefix. When 212945d4a85dfa172ea55ec73b1d830ef2d8582f ("Teach git-describe to verify annotated tag names before output") made Git favor the embedded name of annotated tags, it accidentally changed the output format when the --all flag is given, only printing the tag's name without the prefix. Check if --all was specified and re-add the "tags/" prefix for this special case to fix the regresssion. Signed-off-by: Daniel Knittl-Frank <knittl89+git@googlemail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-12-19builtin/describe.c: describe a blobStefan Beller
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>
2017-11-03t6120: fix typo in test nameStefan Beller
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-09-29Merge branch 'mk/describe-match-with-all'Junio C Hamano
"git describe --match <pattern>" has been taught to play well with the "--all" option. * mk/describe-match-with-all: describe: teach --match to handle branches and remotes
2017-09-28Merge branch 'jk/describe-omit-some-refs'Junio C Hamano
"git describe --match" learned to take multiple patterns in v2.13 series, but the feature ignored the patterns after the first one and did not work at all. This has been fixed. * jk/describe-omit-some-refs: describe: fix matching to actually match all patterns
2017-09-20describe: teach --match to handle branches and remotesMax Kirillov
When `git describe` uses `--match`, it matches only tags, basically ignoring the `--all` argument even when it is specified. Fix it by also matching branch name and $remote_name/$remote_branch_name, for remote-tracking references, with the specified patterns. Update documentation accordingly and add tests. Signed-off-by: Max Kirillov <max@max630.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-09-20Merge branch 'jk/describe-omit-some-refs' into mk/describe-match-with-allJunio C Hamano
* jk/describe-omit-some-refs: describe: fix matching to actually match all patterns
2017-09-17describe: fix matching to actually match all patternsMax Kirillov
`git describe --match` with multiple patterns matches only first pattern. If it fails, next patterns are not tried. Fix it, add test cases and update existing test which has wrong expectation. Signed-off-by: Max Kirillov <max@max630.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-09-15test-lib: don't use ulimit in test prerequisites on cygwinRamsay Jones
On cygwin (and MinGW), the 'ulimit' built-in bash command does not have the desired effect of limiting the resources of new processes, at least for the stack and file descriptors. However, it always returns success and leads to several test prerequisites being erroneously set to true. Add a check for cygwin and MinGW to the prerequisite expressions, using a 'test_have_prereq !MINGW,!CYGWIN' clause, to guard against using ulimit. This affects the prerequisite expressions for the ULIMIT_STACK_SIZE, CMDLINE_LIMIT and ULIMIT_FILE_DESCRIPTORS prerequisites. Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-09-08t6120: test describe and name-rev with deep reposMichael J Gruber
Depending on the implementation of walks, limitted stack size may lead to problems (for recursion). Test name-rev and describe with deep repos and limitted stack size and mark the former with known failure. We add these tests (which add gazillions of commits) last so as to keep the runtime of other subtests the same. Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-09-08t6120: clean up state after breaking repoMichael J Gruber
t6120 breaks the repo state intentionally in the last tests. Clean up the breakage afterwards (and before adding more tests). Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-09-08t6120: test name-rev --all and --stdinMichael J Gruber
name-rev is used in a few tests, but tested only in t6120 along with describe so far. Add tests for name-rev with --all and --stdin. Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-06-27Spelling fixesVille Skyttä
Signed-off-by: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-22builtin/describe: introduce --broken flagStefan Beller
git-describe tells you the version number you're at, or errors out, e.g. when you run it outside of a repository, which may happen when downloading a tar ball instead of using git to obtain the source code. To keep this property of only erroring out, when not in a repository, severe (submodule) errors must be downgraded to reporting them gently instead of having git-describe error out completely. To achieve that a flag '--broken' is introduced, which is in the same vein as '--dirty' but uses an actual child process to check for dirtiness. When that child dies unexpectedly, we'll append '-broken' instead of '-dirty'. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-01-24describe: teach describe negative pattern matchesJacob Keller
Teach git-describe the `--exclude` option which will allow specifying a glob pattern of tags to ignore. This can be combined with the `--match` patterns to enable more flexibility in determining which tags to consider. For example, suppose you wish to find the first official release tag that contains a certain commit. If we assume that official release tags are of the form "v*" and pre-release candidates include "*rc*" in their name, we can now find the first release tag that introduces the commit abcdef: git describe --contains --match="v*" --exclude="*rc*" abcdef Add documentation, tests, and completion for this change. Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-01-24describe: teach --match to accept multiple patternsJacob Keller
Teach `--match` to be accepted multiple times, accumulating a list of patterns to match into a string list. Each pattern is inclusive, such that a tag need only match one of the provided patterns to be considered for matching. This extension is useful as it enables more flexibility in what tags match, and may avoid the need to run the describe command multiple times to get the same result. Add tests and update the documentation for this change. Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-08-25describe --contains: default to HEAD when no commit-ish is givenSZEDER Gábor
'git describe --contains' doesn't default to HEAD when no commit is given, and it doesn't produce any output, not even an error: ~/src/git ((v2.5.0))$ ./git describe --contains ~/src/git ((v2.5.0))$ ./git describe --contains HEAD v2.5.0^0 Unlike other 'git describe' options, the '--contains' code path is implemented by calling 'name-rev' with a bunch of options plus all the commit-ishes that were passed to 'git describe'. If no commit-ish was present, then 'name-rev' got invoked with none, which then leads to the behavior illustrated above. Porcelain commands usually default to HEAD when no commit-ish is given, and 'git describe' already does so in all other cases, so it should do so with '--contains' as well. Pass HEAD to 'name-rev' when no commit-ish is given on the command line to make '--contains' behave consistently with other 'git describe' options. While at it, use argv_array_pushv() instead of the loop to pass commit-ishes to 'git name-rev'. 'git describe's short help already indicates that the commit-ish is optional, but the synopsis in the man page doesn't, so update it accordingly as well. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-07-18describe: fix --contains when a tag is given as inputJunio C Hamano
"git describe" takes a commit and gives it a name based on tags in its neighbourhood. The command does take a commit-ish but when given a tag that points at a commit, it should dereference the tag before computing the name for the commit. As the whole processing is internally delegated to name-rev, if we unwrap tags down to the underlying commit when invoking name-rev, it will make the name-rev issue an error message based on the unwrapped object name (i.e. either 40-hex object name, or "$tag^0") that is different from what the end-user gave to the command when the commit cannot be described. Introduce an internal option --peel-tag to the name-rev to tell it to unwrap a tag in its input from the command line. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-07-18name-rev: differentiate between tags and commits they point atJunio C Hamano
"git name-rev --stdin" has been fixed to convert an object name that points at a tag to a refname of the tag. The codepath to handle its command line arguments, however, fed the commit that the tag points at to the underlying naming machinery. With this fix, you will get this: $ git name-rev --refs=tags/\* --name-only $(git rev-parse v1.8.3 v1.8.3^0) v1.8.3 v1.8.3^0 which is the same as what you would get from the fixed "--stdin" variant: $ git rev-parse v1.8.3 v1.8.3^0 | git name-rev --refs=tags/\* --name-only v1.8.3 v1.8.3^0 Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-05-20describe: Add --first-parent optionMike Crowe
Only consider the first parent commit when walking the commit history. This is useful if you only wish to match tags on your branch after a merge. Signed-off-by: Mike Crowe <mac@mcrowe.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2011-04-13i18n: use test_i18ncmp and test_i18ngrep in t5541, t6040, t6120, t7004, ↵Junio C Hamano
t7012 and t7060 Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2011-03-10i18n: git-describe basic messagesÆvar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2010-04-13describe: Break annotated tag ties by tagger dateShawn O. Pearce
If more than one annotated tag points at the same commit, use the tag whose tagger field has a more recent date stamp. This resolves non-deterministic cases where the maintainer has done: $ git tag -a -m "2.1-rc1" v2.1-rc1 deadbeef $ git tag -a -m "2.1" v2.1 deadbeef If the tag is an older-style annotated tag with no tagger date, we assume a date stamp at the UNIX epoch. This will cause us to prefer an annotated tag that has a valid date. We could also try to consider the tag object chain, favoring a tag that "includes" another one: $ git tag -a -m "2.1-rc0" v2.1-rc1 deadbeef $ git tag -a -m "2.1" v2.1 v2.1-rc1 However traversing the tag's object chain looking for inclusion is much more complicated. Its already very likely that even in these cases the v2.1 tag will have a more recent tagger date than v2.1-rc1, so with this change describe should still resolve this by selecting the more recent v2.1. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-11-21describe: do not use unannotated tag even if exact matchThomas Rast
4d23660 (describe: when failing, tell the user about options that work, 2009-10-28) forgot to update the shortcut path where the code detected and used a possible exact match. This means that an unannotated tag on HEAD would be used by 'git describe'. Guard this code path against the new circumstances, where unannotated tags can be present in ->util even if we're not actually planning to use them. While there, also add some tests for --all. Reported by 'yashi' on IRC. Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2009-11-10Merge branch 'jp/dirty-describe'Junio C Hamano
* jp/dirty-describe: Teach "git describe" --dirty option
2009-10-27Teach "git describe" --dirty optionJean Privat
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>
2009-10-23Do not fail "describe --always" in a tag-less repositoryJunio C Hamano
This fixes a regression introduce by d68dc34 (git-describe: Die early if there are no possible descriptions, 2009-08-06). Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-12-27Merge branch 'sp/maint-describe-all-tag-warning' into maintJunio C Hamano
* sp/maint-describe-all-tag-warning: describe: Avoid unnecessary warning when using --all
2008-12-27describe: Avoid unnecessary warning when using --allShawn O. Pearce
In 212945d4 ("Teach git-describe to verify annotated tag names before output") git-describe learned how to output a warning if an annotated tag object was matched but its internal name doesn't match the local ref name. However, "git describe --all" causes the local ref name to be prefixed with "tags/", so we need to skip over this prefix before comparing the local ref name with the name recorded inside of the tag object. Patch-by: René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-10-17describe: Make --tags and --all match lightweight tags more oftenShawn O. Pearce
If the caller supplies --tags they want the lightweight, unannotated tags to be searched for a match. If a lightweight tag is closer in the history, it should be matched, even if an annotated tag is reachable further back in the commit chain. The same applies with --all when matching any other type of ref. Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Acked-By: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@strlen.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-09-03tests: use "git xyzzy" form (t3600 - t6999)Nanako Shiraishi
Converts tests between t3600-t6300. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-07-03Fix describe --tags --long so it does not segfaultShawn O. Pearce
If we match a lightweight (non-annotated tag) as the name to output and --long was requested we do not have a tag, nor do we have a tagged object to display. Instead we must use the object we were passed as input for the long format display. Reported-by: Mark Burton <markb@ordern.com> Backtraced-by: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-06-04Merge branch 'maint'Junio C Hamano
* maint: describe: match pattern for lightweight tags too
2008-06-04describe: match pattern for lightweight tags tooMichael Dressel
The <pattern> given "git describe --match" was used only to filter tag objects, and not to filter lightweight tags. This fixes it. [jc: made the log to clarify this is a bugfix, not an enhancement, with additional test] Signed-off-by: Michael Dressel <MichaelTiloDressel@t-online.de> Acked-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-05-24tests: do not use implicit "git diff --no-index"Junio C Hamano
As a general principle, we should not use "git diff" to validate the results of what git command that is being tested has done. We would not know if we are testing the command in question, or locating a bug in the cute hack of "git diff --no-index". Rather use test_cmp for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-03-04t6120 (describe): check --long properlyJunio C Hamano
Existing test checked --long only for exactly tagged commit. We should make sure it works sensibly for commits that are not tagged. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>