This is my fault: this is a lightweight tag. Thank you!
2017-02-13 21:35 GMT+01:00 Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>: > Kevin Daudt <m...@ikke.info> writes: > >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 01:15:22PM +0100, Istvan Pato wrote: >> >>> (master) [1] % git show-ref --tag >>> 76c634390... refs/tags/1.0.0 >>> b77c7cd17... refs/tags/1.1.0 >>> b77c7cd17... refs/tags/1.2.0 >>> >>> (master) % git describe --tags --always >>> 1.1.0-1-ge9e9ced >>> >>> ### Expected: 1.2.0 >>> ... >> >> Are these lightweight tags? Only annotated tags have a date associated >> to them, which is where the rel-notes refers to. > > Good eyes. The fact that the two points at the same object means > that even if they were both annotated tags, they have the same > tagger dates. > > If the code that compares the candidates and picks better tag to > describe the object with knows the refnames of these "tags", I'd > imagine that we could use the versioncmp() logic as the final tie > breaker, but I do not offhand remember if the original refname we > took the tag (or commit) from is propagated that deep down the > callchain. It probably does not, so some code refactoring may be > needed if somebody wants to go in that direction. > > > > >
