From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:00:50 +0100 Message-ID: <56914AD2.9060303@kdbg.org> References: <1674931730.811704.1452354002885.JavaMail.zimbra@imag.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthieu Moy , Bryan Turner , Git Users To: Karthik Nayak X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jan 09 19:00:59 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aHxow-0001SH-5J for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 19:00:58 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755907AbcAISAy (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:00:54 -0500 Received: from bsmtp8.bon.at ([213.33.87.20]:47494 "EHLO bsmtp8.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755888AbcAISAx (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:00:53 -0500 Received: from dx.site (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp8.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3pd8H70tTMz5tlD; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:00:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dx.site (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE00E51D4; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:00:50 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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. >>> >>> 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.) >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Bryan Turner > > 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. -- Hannes