Re: Commits gone AWOL, but not reported by git-fsck --unreachable

Brian Gernhardt [off-list ref] writes:

On May 19, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:

quoted

The commit introducing it is 566842f62bdf1f16c2e94fb431445d2e6c0f3f0b,
and I'd say it's in git 1.5.1:

$ git-describe --tags 566842f62bdf1f16c2e94fb431445d2e6c0f3f0b
v1.5.1-34-g566842f

Actually, I think that means it's 34 commits *after* v1.5.1, not
before.  It's in 1.5.2-rc0, but none of the 1.5.1.* series.

You're right. Then, is there any easy way to ask git the oldest tag(s)
that a commit is an ancestor of? In other words, which command should
I have typed above?

-- 
Matthieu

On May 19, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Brian Gernhardt [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On May 19, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:

quoted

The commit introducing it is  
566842f62bdf1f16c2e94fb431445d2e6c0f3f0b,
and I'd say it's in git 1.5.1:

$ git-describe --tags 566842f62bdf1f16c2e94fb431445d2e6c0f3f0b
v1.5.1-34-g566842f

Actually, I think that means it's 34 commits *after* v1.5.1, not
before.  It's in 1.5.2-rc0, but none of the 1.5.1.* series.

You're right. Then, is there any easy way to ask git the oldest tag(s)
that a commit is an ancestor of? In other words, which command should
I have typed above?

I did it the hard way with "git log v1.5.1..v.1.5.1.1", "..1.5.1.2",  
and using grep to look for 566842.  Anybody better at constructing  
these incantations want to chime in?

~~ Brian