From: Karl Hasselström Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:36:07 GMT Subject: Re: [StGit PATCH] Convert "pop" to the lib infrastructure Message-ID: <20090403103607.GA9113@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> In-Reply-To: On 2009-04-02 17:20:45 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > 2009/4/1 Karl Hasselström : > > > 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 -- Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com www.treskal.com/kalle