# Re: \[PATCH 1/2\] ref-filter: hacky "streaming" mode

- From: ZheNing Hu \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-09-15 14:23:57 
- List: git
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2021/09/7902551
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2021/09/7901261/t.md

```text
ZheNing Hu [ref] 于2021年9月15日周三 下午8:27写道：
>
> > So yes, it's complicated. And it must be explained to the user that
> > "%(refname)" behaves slightly differently with "git tag --verify", but
> > that is unavoidable if we do not want to break scripts (it _already_
> > behaves slightly differently, and we just never told anyone).
> >

$ git tag --verify --format='verify: %(refname) %(symref)' annotated symref
verify: annotated
verify: symref
$ git tag --verify --format='verify: %(refname) %(symref)'
refs/tags/annotated refs/tags/symref
error: tag 'refs/tags/annotated' not found.
error: tag 'refs/tags/symref' not found.

$ git verify-tag --format='verify: %(refname) %(symref)' annotated
symref
verify: annotated
verify: symref
$ git verify-tag --format='verify: %(refname) %(symref)'
refs/tags/annotated refs/tags/symref
verify: refs/tags/annotated
verify: refs/tags/symref

As we can see, there is a slight difference between git tag --verify and
git verify-tag: git tag --verify can not handle refs' fullname refs/tags/*
(because read_ref_full() | read_ref() can't handle them). So, as a standard,
which characteristics should we keep?

> > The other option is to declare the current behavior a bug and fix it. I
> > am quite tempted by that route, given the inconsistency with other
> > formatters, including even "git tag --list --format=%(refname)"!
>
> I don't know, I think both fix methods are okay.
>
> >
> > -Peff
>
> Thanks.
> --
> ZheNing Hu
```