>> Does the code describe a9dbc3f12c as v2.15.0:GIT-VERSION-GEN, or
>> would it always be <commit>:<path>?
>
> As the blob is described using this function:
>
> static void process_object(struct object *obj, const char *path, void *data)
> {
> struct process_commit_data *pcd = data;
>
> if (!oidcmp(&pcd->looking_for, &obj->oid) && !pcd->dst->len) {
> reset_revision_walk();
> describe_commit(&pcd->current_commit, pcd->dst);
> strbuf_addf(pcd->dst, ":%s", path);
> }
> }
>
> i.e. as `describe_commit()` is used on the commit part, the answer to your
> question is: the former. I guess that is why Stefan wrote `commit-ish`
> instead of `commit` ;-)
$ ./git describe a9dbc3f12c
warning: reflog of 'HEAD' references pruned commits
v2.15.0-7-g980e40477f:GIT-VERSION-GEN
So as noted below, this output is less than ideal, but technically correct as
v2.15.0-7-g980e40477f contains that blob as well (you don't have these;
it is this very series consisting of 7 patches on top of 2.15, none of them
touching GIT-VERSION-GEN, hence that blob stays intact.)
The way Junio asked, we actually may prefer the commit-ish to give
that commit that introduced the blob for the first time, i.e. add the
--reverse to the graph walking.
