On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 12:24 AM Daniel Colascione wrote: > Stéphane Marks writes: > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 6:39 PM Peter Oliver > > wrote: > > > >> On Jun 8, 2025, at 10:45 AM, Juri Linkov linkov.net> wrote: > >> > >> > Here is the current state: > >> > > >> > 3. (treesit--install-language-grammar-1 > >> > (locate-user-emacs-file "tree-sitter") 'json > >> > "https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-json" > >> > "4d770d3") > >> > > >> > fails to check out "4d770d3" with the error: > >> > > >> > git clone https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-json --quiet > >> --depth 1 -b 4d770d3 > >> > warning: Could not find remote branch 4d770d3 to clone > >> > fatal: Remote branch 4d770d3 not found in upstream origin > >> > >> I’m a bit late to the party, here, but would it make sense to have, say: > >> > >> (treesit--install-language-grammar-1 > >> (locate-user-emacs-file "tree-sitter") 'json > >> "https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-json" > >> :tag "v0.24.8" > >> :commit "4d770d31f732d50d3ec373865822fbe659e47c75") > >> > >> We could then: > >> > >> git clone https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-json --quiet > >> --depth 1 -b v0.24.8 > >> git checkout 4d770d31f732d50d3ec373865822fbe659e47c75 > >> > >> Additionally, I think including the tag helps to clarify the intention > to > >> anyone reading the code, without them having to go away and refer to the > >> repository to find out about that commit. > > > > > > git tags aren't really immutable, though, as they can be changed to point > > to other commits. If you want to specify both a commit hash and a tag > and > > the tag doesn't or no longer points to that commit, that would be > > confusing. > > Or an error. I guess you could include tag names to allow for some kind > of UX shorthand while verifying, using the hashes, that the tags still > refer to their designated trees. > Good.