On 2009-04-02 17:20:45 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 2009/4/1 Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > On 2009-03-31 12:30:27 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ test_expect_success 'Try to reset with --hard' '
> > > stg reset --hard master.stgit^~1 &&
> > > stg status a > actual.txt &&
> > > test_cmp expected.txt actual.txt &&
> > > - test "$(echo $(stg series))" = "> p1 - p3 - p2"
> > > + test "$(echo $(stg series))" = "> p1 - p2 - p3"
> > > '
> >
> > Hmm, why this change in behavior? Something that should be noted
> > in the commit message?
> >
> > > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ test_expect_success 'Try to undo with --hard' '
> > > stg undo --hard &&
> > > stg status a > actual.txt &&
> > > test_cmp expected.txt actual.txt &&
> > > - test "$(echo $(stg series))" = "> p1 - p3 - p2"
> > > + test "$(echo $(stg series))" = "> p1 - p2 - p3"
> > > '
> >
> > And I guess this is the same.
>
> I think we now get a slightly different behaviour because of how the
> transactions are generated with the new infrastructure. In the above
> case, you have "pop p2 p3" and "push p3", the latter failing. The
> "pop p2 p3" command results in the stack being "> p1 - p2 - p3"
> while "push p3" performs a single step for pushing and reordering.
> The old push caused a reorder followed by a push.
Ah, OK. Hmm, I guess either behavior has its pros and cons. (Though I
guess the new behavior -- not changing the order when the push failed
-- might be slightly more intuitive.)
Add that explanation to the commit message, and I'll award you a
Acked-by: Karl Hasselström <kha@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Karl Hasselström, kha@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.treskal.com/kalle
--
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
