On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 10:23:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Really? Would "git log --expand master" be useful?
I'm clearly not an expert on this, but isn't that what git show-ref master is for? Or is the fact that show-ref returns hashes the more important feature? There was a lot of "ambiguous refs" discussion in the follow-up for http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/165885 Subject: [1.8.0] Provide proper remote ref namespaces For example: On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:25:51PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > Will the same apply to refs/heads/foo versus refs/remotes/*/foo? Will it > also apply to refs/heads/foo versus refs/remotes/*/tags/foo? In the > final case, that does matter to "git push" (should the destination be in > the head or tag namespace?). So the actual names of the ref can matter, > and should probably be taken into account when deciding what is > ambiguous. So it seems like having a way to figure out how Git is interpreting a shorthand ref would be useful, especially while those of us with less experience are learning to think like Git. The expansion command doesn't have to be notes-specific, but since the current ref expansion is role specific (e.g. branch/tag/note/…), it seemed like the best place to put it. With more consistent ref interpretation, I'd be less interested in this expansion command ;). Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
