From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: I just pulled and built 'next'... Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:00:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20070108210002.GA15121@thunk.org> References: <7vvejhwa6g.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 08 22:00:22 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H41bH-0007eM-RX for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:00:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932663AbXAHVAH (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:00:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932664AbXAHVAH (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:00:07 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:54468 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932673AbXAHVAF (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:00:05 -0500 Received: from root (helo=candygram.thunk.org) by thunker.thunk.org with local-esmtps (tls_cipher TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1H41fd-0005bH-ST; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:04:42 -0500 Received: from tytso by candygram.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1H41b8-0001Cf-9X; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:00:02 -0500 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vvejhwa6g.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:11:35PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > One question is how you would sort the result. If you sort them > by taggerdate, you would get v1.4.4.4 anyway ;-). I was assuming either lexigraphically, or via some really complicated rpm/dpkg version number comparison scheme. :-) > If we go with topology, we do not necessarily have to find all > the tags. When we hit a commit that is tagged, we can stop the > traversal (so after finding v1.5.0-rc0, we do not have to go > back along the 'master' lineage to find v1.4.4 tag). Traversing > from the tip of 'master' (or 'next') this way we will notice > that v1.5.0-rc0 and v1.4.4.4 are the candidates without going > any further in the past. > > But the question still remains which one between the two to > pick. Yeah, that is the question. If we're willing to look at the tag name, it's pretty clear that if both v1.5.0-rc0 and v1.4.4.4 is reachable from the head, it should be based on the "newer" version, i.e., v1.5.0-rc0. A human can figure this out easily, but algorithimically we end up having to use something like the rpm or dpkg version comparison algorithm, both of which are hueristics that will sometimes get thigns wrong. - Ted