From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
To: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>,
Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>,
Git Users <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:51:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <569229B8.9000009@kdbg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZTUcmAjpC4nf_o7ZAHC3Asj9iwfKOOrJr90_kAyMbd22A@mail.gmail.com>
Am 09.01.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Karthik Nayak:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
>> Am 09.01.2016 um 18:21 schrieb Karthik Nayak:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Note: The alphabetical-ness of the branch names is reversed, which
>>>>> seems logical given my original sort was -committerdate. A
>>>>> --sort=refname looks like this.
After reading up on branch sorting, I notice that the single dash in
front of committerdate is not a typo, but a request to sort in reverse.
Therefore, the resulting sort order, which was
refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100
refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
refs/heads/@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
is totally correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
>>>>> refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100
>>>>> refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
>>>>> refs/heads/@#$% - >Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
>>>>> refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
>>>>>
>>>>> That's probably more correct too.)
But I don't know what would be "more" correct here. It's simply correct.
>>> This is correct as per the patch, But I'm wondering if this is desired.
>>> I.E when sorting in reverse order should the fallback (alphabetical sort)
>>> also be in reverse order?
>>
>>
>> IMO, the fallback sorting should be in reverse order only when the user
>> explicitley asked for reverse order. Just because committer date implies
>> some "reverse" ordering should not imply that refs with the same committer
>> date should also be listed in reverse alphabetical order.
I was wrong here. Sorting by committerdate does not imply reverse-ness.
I just did not know enough about the --sort options when I wrote this
paragraph.
>
> I was thinking along the same lines. But do we want to expose the fallback to
> the user (i.e let them choose if its reversible or not)?
No, we do not want to expose the fallback to the user. And as far as I
can see, no further change is required.
-- Hannes
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-10 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-09 1:07 for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 Bryan Turner
2016-01-09 15:40 ` Matthieu Moy
2016-01-09 17:21 ` Karthik Nayak
2016-01-09 18:00 ` Johannes Sixt
2016-01-09 21:29 ` Karthik Nayak
2016-01-10 9:51 ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=569229B8.9000009@kdbg.org \
--to=j6t@kdbg.org \
--cc=bturner@atlassian.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=karthik.188@gmail.com \
--cc=matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.