Re: [PATCH v2] peel_onion(): add support for ^{tag}

2013-09-03 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 02:36:39PM -0400, Richard Hansen wrote: > I have a patch submission question: Is it OK that I didn't use the > '--in-reply-to' argument to 'git send-email' when I sent the v3 reroll? > Should I have marked it as a reply to the v2 email? Or should I have > marked it as a

Re: [PATCH v2] peel_onion(): add support for ^{tag}

2013-09-03 Thread Richard Hansen
On 2013-09-03 03:05, Jeff King wrote: > FWIW, this makes sense to me. Thank you for the feedback. I posted a reroll of the patch that you've already replied to, but for the benefit of others searching the mailing list archive, v3 can be found at

Re: [PATCH v2] peel_onion(): add support for ^{tag}

2013-09-03 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:42:31AM -0400, Richard Hansen wrote: > Complete the ^{} family of object specifiers by having > ^{tag} dereference until a tag object is found (or fail if > unable). > > At first glance this may not seem very useful, as commits, trees, and > blobs cannot be peeled to a

[PATCH v2] peel_onion(): add support for ^{tag}

2013-09-01 Thread Richard Hansen
Complete the ^{} family of object specifiers by having ^{tag} dereference until a tag object is found (or fail if unable). At first glance this may not seem very useful, as commits, trees, and blobs cannot be peeled to a tag, and a tag would just peel to itself. However, this can be used to ensur