On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17/11/14 15:34, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi Sedat, >>> >>> On 15/11/14 12:50, Sedat Dilek wrote: >>>> Cosmetics? Intended? >>>> >>>> $ LC_ALL=C git status >>>> # On branch master >>>> # Your branch is up-to-date with 'origin/master'. >>>> # >>>> nothing to commit, working directory clean >>>> >>>> $ LC_ALL=C git checkout -b 10.4 origin/10.4 >>>> Branch 10.4 set up to track remote branch 10.4 from origin. >>>> Switched to a new branch '10.4' >>>> >>>> $ LC_ALL=C git describe >>>> 10.2-branchpoint-3617-ga4ffc2a >>>> >>> It seems that git describe does not like/honour tags that have not been >>> signed. With the 10.3 and 10.4 branchpoint being such, this leads to the >>> case you've pointed out. >> >> git help describe: >> >> --tags >> Instead of using only the annotated tags, use any tag found in >> refs/tags namespace. This option enables matching a lightweight >> (non-annotated) tag. >> >> Does "annotated" mean "signed"? >> > Your guess is as good as mine. > >> $ git describe HEAD >> 10.2-branchpoint-3007-ge1c5444 >> $ git describe --tags HEAD >> 10.3-branchpoint-937-ge1c5444 >> > I would assume that you had something based off 10.3 checked out ?
Yes. It even tells you exactly what commit I had checked out :) > > $ git describe --tags origin/master > 10.4-branchpoint-25-gae4536b > > > -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
