Does Git warn me if a shorthand commit ID can refer to 2 different commits?
cee157 can refer to 2 different commit IDs, such as
will Git warn me if I type in
git log cee157? (or Git 220.127.116.11 (Apple Git-48) allows me to type in
git log cee1).
I think it should, although I can’t find any authoritative source that says it would.
2 Solutions collect form web for “Does Git warn me if a shorthand commit ID can refer to 2 different commits?”
It should give you something like this:
$ git log cee157 error: short SHA1 cee157 is ambiguous. error: short SHA1 cee157 is ambiguous. fatal: ambiguous argument 'cee157': unknown revision or path not in the working tree. Use '--' to separate paths from revisions, like this: 'git <command> [<revision>...] -- [<file>...]'
I just tested this on a real Git repository, by finding commits with duplicate prefixes like this:
git rev-list master | cut -c-4 | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head
This takes the list of revisions in
master, cuts out the first 4 characters and throws away the rest, count the duplicates and sort numerically. In a my relatively small repository of ~1500 commits I found quite a few revisions with a common 4-digit prefix. I chose a 4-digit prefix because that seems to be the shortest legal length supported by Git. (Doesn’t work with 3 digits or less, even if not ambiguous.)
Btw this was not a typo, I don’t know why the error message about ambiguous SHA1 appears twice, regardless of the number of duplicate SHA1 (tried with 2 and 3):
error: short SHA1 cee157 is ambiguous. error: short SHA1 cee157 is ambiguous.
stderr. Actually the entire output is on
stderr, nothing on
Tested in Windows:
$ git --version git version 1.8.1.msysgit.1
I think it’s safe to say that if your version is >= 1.8.1, Git will warn you of duplicates. (It will refuse to operate with duplicates.) I would guess that much older versions worked this way too.
When testing this, you need a minimum of 4-digit SHA1, because of
int minimum_abbrev = 4 in environment.c. (Thanks @devnull for pointing that out!)
The original poster states:
I think it should, although I can’t find any authoritative source that
says it would.
The authoritative source can be found in the source code,
if (!quietly && (status == SHORT_NAME_AMBIGUOUS)) return error("short SHA1 %.*s is ambiguous.", len, hex_pfx);
if (!ds->candidate_checked) /* * If this is the only candidate, there is no point * calling the disambiguation hint callback. * * On the other hand, if the current candidate * replaced an earlier candidate that did _not_ pass * the disambiguation hint callback, then we do have * more than one objects that match the short name * given, so we should make sure this one matches; * otherwise, if we discovered this one and the one * that we previously discarded in the reverse order, * we would end up showing different results in the * same repository! */ ds->candidate_ok = (!ds->disambiguate_fn_used || ds->fn(ds->candidate, ds->cb_data)); if (!ds->candidate_ok) return SHORT_NAME_AMBIGUOUS;
Moreover, tests also exist to ensure that the feature works as expected.