From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:17:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tag: support --sort=<spec>
Message-ID: <20140226111711.GA3122@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8Aqd4-9z3nb2Hi=nxrRLUYN+9pGiNP7-fnUE_Bn5zRW+Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:11:54PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > I'd worry slightly, though, that there are other schemes where that
> > behaves poorly. Should we optimize for git's version numbering, or for
> > what most other projects want? There could even be room for two types of
> > version-compare. But before thinking about that, I'd want to know why
> > glibc behaves as it does.
> 
> We don't have to force one version style for all projects. We could
> provide --sort="thisver:refname" vs. "thatver:refname", or put the
> "-pre" part in config file. The important thing is we can control the
> version algorithm.

Right, exactly. It may make sense to just do it the way _we_ think is
sensible for now, then, and we can add a glibc-compatible one later if
somebody actually wants it.

-Peff