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

  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 ;).


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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to