Re: [StGit PATCH] Convert "pop" to the lib infrastructure

["Karl Hasselström" <kha@treskal.com>]

On 2009-04-02 17:20:45 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> 2009/4/1 Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>:
>
> > On 2009-03-31 12:30:27 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ test_expect_success 'Try to reset with --hard' '
> > >      stg reset --hard master.stgit^~1 &&
> > >      stg status a > actual.txt &&
> > >      test_cmp expected.txt actual.txt &&
> > > -    test "$(echo $(stg series))" = "> p1 - p3 - p2"
> > > +    test "$(echo $(stg series))" = "> p1 - p2 - p3"
> > >  '
> >
> > Hmm, why this change in behavior? Something that should be noted
> > in the commit message?
> >
> > > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ test_expect_success 'Try to undo with --hard' '
> > >      stg undo --hard &&
> > >      stg status a > actual.txt &&
> > >      test_cmp expected.txt actual.txt &&
> > > -    test "$(echo $(stg series))" = "> p1 - p3 - p2"
> > > +    test "$(echo $(stg series))" = "> p1 - p2 - p3"
> > >  '
> >
> > And I guess this is the same.
>
> I think we now get a slightly different behaviour because of how the
> transactions are generated with the new infrastructure. In the above
> case, you have "pop p2 p3" and "push p3", the latter failing. The
> "pop p2 p3" command results in the stack being "> p1 - p2 - p3"
> while "push p3" performs a single step for pushing and reordering.
> The old push caused a reorder followed by a push.

Ah, OK. Hmm, I guess either behavior has its pros and cons. (Though I
guess the new behavior -- not changing the order when the push failed
-- might be slightly more intuitive.)

Add that explanation to the commit message, and I'll award you a

Acked-by: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle