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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).