From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Seymour Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:21:50 +1000 Message-ID: <2cfc403205070516216b911160@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050705010619.13581.qmail@blackcubes.dyndns.org> Reply-To: jon@blackcubes.dyndns.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, jon.seymour@gmail.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 06 01:24:42 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DpwmK-0006oA-ON for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 01:24:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262012AbVGEXXM (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:23:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262015AbVGEXXL (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:23:11 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.193]:39801 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262012AbVGEXVu convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2005 19:21:50 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i8so969427rne for ; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=R+jVdCMIQKj/25PPE974DaEsJQMgBfbbIaKA3ZKyLxMMOZkUJTDOTkuJfrGUVuHyxGOfaj7iiqEGGDIq2ZxMgwfq9FJVHtgkHS9NBq4bCgcu1KRABaMWi2rKESKehGfQSXpEi8BJ9xmjfsRdtsqifNoCAagBqFABGxp14Y08Yxk= Received: by 10.38.65.5 with SMTP id n5mr4397973rna; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.104.42 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:21:50 -0700 (PDT) To: git@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050705010619.13581.qmail@blackcubes.dyndns.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org G'day Linus, Is there some reason why this didn't get applied? jon. On 7/5/05, Jon Seymour 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