On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
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)? If not Its only a small
change required:
diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
index cc850b0..59d43d7 100644
--- a/ref-filter.c
+++ b/ref-filter.c
@@ -1554,7 +1554,7 @@ static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting
*s, struct ref_array_item *a, stru
if (va->ul < vb->ul)
cmp = -1;
else if (va->ul == vb->ul)
- cmp = strcmp(a->refname, b->refname);
+ return strcmp(a->refname, b->refname);
else
cmp = 1;
}
I could send a patch, as soon as we decide if we want to stick something
simple like this or expose the fallback sort to the user.
--
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html