Re: [PATCH] peel_onion(): add support for rev^{tag}

Richard Hansen wrote: --- a/sha1_name.c +++ b/sha1_name.c @@ -677,6 +677,8 @@ static int peel_onion(const char *name, int len, unsigned char *sha1) sp++; /* beginning of type name, or closing brace for empty */ if (!strncmp(commit_type, sp, 6) sp[6] == '}')

Re: [PATCH] peel_onion(): add support for rev^{tag}

Richard Hansen rhan...@bbn.com writes: Barfing on non-tags is the feature this adds. It's otherwise useless, just like object^{object} is useless except to barf when object doesn't exist. Thanks. I could buy that. And after re-reading the proposed log message, you do not quite have

Re: [PATCH] peel_onion(): add support for rev^{tag}

Richard Hansen rhan...@bbn.com writes: gitrevisions(7) implies that rev^{tag} should work,... Does it? Is it possible that that should be fixed? What does it even _mean_ to peel something to a TAG? A commit, a tree or a blob cannot be peeled to a tag---none of them can contain a tag. When

Re: [PATCH] peel_onion(): add support for rev^{tag}

On 2013-06-19 14:38, Junio C Hamano wrote: Richard Hansen rhan...@bbn.com writes: gitrevisions(7) implies that rev^{tag} should work,... Does it? Is it possible that that should be fixed? Depends on whether you think ^{tag} is a useful feature or not; see below. What does it even