Re: [PATCH] describe: fix --exclude, --match with --contains and --all

> Tuomas Ahola <taahol@utu.fi> writes:
> 
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is curious that this fails in some but not all CI jobs, and even
>>> more curious that these failures look the same.
>>>
>>> e.g., https://github.com/git/git/actions/runs/26671595367/job/78615760984#step:4:1984
>>>
>>>   +++ diff -u expect actual
>>>   --- expect	2026-05-30 02:21:23
>>>   +++ actual	2026-05-30 02:21:23
>>>   @@ -1 +1 @@
>>>   -branch_A
>>>   +remotes/origin/remote_branch_A
>>>   error: last command exited with $?=1
>>>   not ok 70 - describe --contains --all --exclude
>>>   #	
>>>   #		echo "branch_A" >expect &&
>>>   #		tagged_commit=$(git rev-parse "refs/tags/A^0") &&
>>>   #		git describe --contains --all --exclude="A" --exclude="c" --exclude="test*" $tagged_commit >actual &&
>>>   #		test_cmp expect actual
>>>
>>> Rings any bell?
>>
>> That's way out of my wheelhouse but this seems to fix the failure
>> for Alpine at least:
>>
>> -----8<-----
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/name-rev.c b/builtin/name-rev.c
>> index d6594ada53..1776ffab46 100644
>> --- a/builtin/name-rev.c
>> +++ b/builtin/name-rev.c
>> @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static void name_tips(struct mem_pool *string_pool)
>>  	 * Try to set better names first, so that worse ones spread
>>  	 * less.
>>  	 */
>> -	QSORT(tip_table.table, tip_table.nr, cmp_by_tag_and_age);
>> +	STABLE_QSORT(tip_table.table, tip_table.nr, cmp_by_tag_and_age);
>>  	for (i = 0; i < tip_table.nr; i++) {
>>  		struct tip_table_entry *e = &tip_table.table[i];
>>  		if (e->commit) {
> 
> Ah, OK, when the test has multiple candidates with the same score,
> of course emitting any one of them as the answer is a valid and
> correctly working program.
> 
> So switching to stable-qsort here may "fix" the test breakage, but
> it makes the real-world use cases worse, doesn't it?  When any one
> of the solutions with the same "goodness" is acceptable, the change
> makes the code behave as if the elements in the table before they
> are sorted have an "if same score, earlier the better" kind of
> relationship between them.
> 
> I would have preferred to see a tweak on the test side to avoid
> having more than one answer of the same goodness, or perhaps list
> all the possible acceptable answers and instead of using test_cmp to
> check for the exact answer, take any of the acceptable ones, or
> something like that.
> 
> Thanks.
>