[PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch

[PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch

[Jon Seymour]

A recent change to rev-list altered the order in which start points
are presented to the merge-order sort algorithm. This caused
breaks in the t/t6001 unit tests.

This change restores the order in which start points are presented to the
the merge-order sort algorithm (but leaves the order unchanged from
the immediately preceding behaviour for non --merge-order sorts).

The order in which arguments are presented to the merge-order
sort algorithm is significant, since left-most arguments
are expected to sort last so as to be consistent with
how left-most parents sort.

Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
---

 rev-list.c |    5 ++++-
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

ed4451af196ea31ec0c6c7f663290a9b325482cd
diff --git a/rev-list.c b/rev-list.c
--- a/rev-list.c
+++ b/rev-list.c
@@ -482,7 +482,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 		commit = get_commit_reference(arg, flags);
 		if (!commit)
 			continue;
-		insert_by_date(&list, commit);
+		if (!merge_order) 
+			insert_by_date(&list, commit);
+		else
+			commit_list_insert(commit, &list);
 	}
 
 	if (!merge_order) {		
------------

Re: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch

[Jon Seymour]

G'day Linus,

Is there some reason why this didn't get applied?

jon.

On 7/5/05, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> A recent change to rev-list altered the order in which start points
> are presented to the merge-order sort algorithm. This caused
> breaks in the t/t6001 unit tests.
> 
> This change restores the order in which start points are presented to the
> the merge-order sort algorithm (but leaves the order unchanged from
> the immediately preceding behaviour for non --merge-order sorts).
> 
> The order in which arguments are presented to the merge-order
> sort algorithm is significant, since left-most arguments
> are expected to sort last so as to be consistent with
> how left-most parents sort.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Jon Seymour wrote:
> 
> Is there some reason why this didn't get applied?

I think it's horribly horribly ugly. 

I really don't see the point of argument ordering mattering, and I think 
the test is broken. Convince me otherwise.

		Linus