On 13-09-30 04:08 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, Marc Branchaud wrote: > >> On 13-09-30 11:52 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> Consider that I have in my Linux kernel tree: >>> >>> - a remote branch corresponding to Linus' master tree >>> >>> - multiple remote branches corresponding to Linux stable branches >>> >>> - a remote for linux-next which is a repo constantly being rebased >>> >>> Now all those repositories share the mainline tags from Linus' repo and >>> they add some more of they own which are not shared. So if they all >>> have a v3.11 tag that resolve to the same SHA1, then there is >>> effectively no ambiguity at all and git should not warn at all. >> >> Thanks, this example helps very much. >> >>> *However* if one of those v3.11 tags does not agree with the others >>> _then_ I want to be warned about it. >> >> Hmmm. What behaviour would you like if you also had some non-Linux remote, >> say for some driver code or something, that also had a v3.11 tag? > > I want git to complain and bail out, maybe suggesting that I should use > "driver_something/tag/v3.11" to disambiguate the tag. > >> I presume >> you want commands like >> git checkout -b my-topic v3.11 >> to do the Right Thing, but what's the right thing for you here? > > git itself can't know it. So the best git could do is to list > conflicting tags with the shortest path that makes them unambiguous and > suggest that I try again with one of them. > >>> So having multiple matching tags that do resolve to the same SHA1 across >>> different remote repositories _is_ the norm and should work >>> transparently. >> >> My suggestion for your example is that if some remote's tags are so >> important/useful then you're better off importing them into your local tag >> namespace (e.g. "git fetch Linus refs/tags/*:refs/tags/*"). By making the >> remote's tags local, you're expressly telling git that they should be >> considered for DWIMery, git-describe, etc. > > Sure, it is probably a good thing semantically to give priority to local > tags when they exist. However... > >> I feel this approach lets us avoid having to somehow teach git which remote's >> "v3.11" tags are important enough to merit an ambiguity warning and which >> aren't. Plus you get what I think you want, which is the current behaviour. > > But I disagree here. Most people simply won't care about local tags > since the remote tags are sufficient for what they need.
Good point -- I see where my suggestion was wrong. I think it's worthwhile to make sure that bare tag names "just work" after a simple clone. Git's DWIM code already does this for branch names, and it makes sense to extend that to other ref types in remote namespaces. > And if they > have multiple remotes in their repository then it is most likely to be > different forks of the same project sharing mostly the same tags, and > where those tags diverge then they're most likely to have different tag > names as well. I disagree about the "most likely" part, but it's only a niggle. I agree with the overall point that disambiguation through SHA1 comparison makes sense. > So in the large majority of the cases, this v3.11 tag > will come from one or more remotes and they will refer to the same SHA1, > so it ought to just work without any special fetch. Also, if I refer to > v3.11.1 which is a tag that only exists in one of the remote branches > and not in Linus' remote then it ought to just work as well. That is > more inline with the current _usage_ behavior even if the flat namespace > is otherwise a nightmare to sort out when managing remotes. Agreed. > Furthermore, git already has some code to detect refname ambiguities: > > $ git init && echo "foo" > foo.txt && git add foo.txt > $ git commit -m "foo" && git tag foo && git branch foo && git log foo > warning: refname 'foo' is ambiguous. > > So adding the extra step to lookup all possible tags and make sure they > resolve to the same SHA1 should be a logical extension to what's already > there. > > Again, in the cases where there is actually a SHA1 conflict between all > possible tags that match a tag short-end then listing them and asking the > user to be more explicit is the right thing to do. But that should be a > very rare case in practice, and designing for making this case easy is > the wrong approach. > > Instead, the common case of multiple remotes with duplicated tag names > referring to the same thing _and/or_ multiple remotes with distinct tags > names is what should be made easy to use with no extra steps. Again, I don't think that's the common case. I think it's just as likely for there to be multiple remotes with duplicate tag names that refer to different objects. However, SHA1-disambiguation covers all these cases. M. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html