After a closer look, it seems the initial patch wasn't correctly sent
to the list. Please disregard, I'm re-sending the patch entirely.

James Denholm.

On 8 May 2014 07:53, James Denholm <> wrote:
> On 4 May 2014 16:33:32 GMT+10:00, James Denholm <> wrote:
>>cmd_add_commit() is passed FETCH_HEAD by cmd_add_repository, which is
>>then rev-parsed into an object ID. However, if the user is fetching a
>>tag rather than a branch HEAD, such as by executing:
>>$ git subtree add -P oldGit tags/v1.8.0
>>The object ID is a tag and is never peeled, and the git commit-tree
>>(line 561) slaps us in the face because it doesn't handle tag IDs.
>>Because peeling a committish ID doesn't do anything if it's already a
>>commit, fix by peeling[1] the object ID before assigning it to $rev, as
>>per the patch.
>>[*1*]: Via peel_committish(), from
>>Reported-by: Kevin Cagle <>
>>Diagnosed-by: Junio C Hamano <>
>>Signed-off-by: James Denholm <>
>>NB: This bug doesn't surface when using --squash, as $rev is reassigned
>>to the squash commit via new_squash_commit before git commit-tree sees
>>it (though for simplicity, new_squash_commit now also sees the peeled
>>Also doesn't surface when using "git subtree merge", as git merge can
>>handle tag objects.
>>On a side note, if merging a tag without --squash, git merge recognises
>>that it's a tag and adds a note to the merge commit body. It may be
>>worth mimicking this when using "subtree merge --squash" or
>>"subtree add".
>> contrib/subtree/ | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>diff --git a/contrib/subtree/
>>index dc59a91..9453dae 100755
>>--- a/contrib/subtree/
>>+++ b/contrib/subtree/
>>@@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ cmd_add_commit()
>> {
>>       revs=$(git rev-parse $default --revs-only "$@") || exit $?
>>       set -- $revs
>>-      rev="$1"
>>+      rev=$(peel_committish "$1")
>>       debug "Adding $dir as '$rev'..."
>>       git read-tree --prefix="$dir" $rev || exit $?
> I know that subtree isn't exactly the most popular or exciting part of
> the project at the moment, but given that this is adding a subtree based
> on an annotated tag is a reasonably sensible operation and (to me) the
> fix seems reasonably trivial, could I get some eyes on this?
> Regards,
> James Denholm.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to