Re: [PATCH] tag: support --sort=version

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 21, 2014, 11:58 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8BrfKckHzgwRnW_UMTjipuYWGVcumvCmQC9EG1Eq-MScA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140220204345.GA3374@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

> I think I actually prefer the full word "version", as you have already.
> It's clear what it means, and we can extend the syntax generally to:

Agreed. It's hard to find a letter that reminds you about "version".

Show 18 quoted lines

>
>   --sort=[-][comparison:]field
>
> like:
>
>   --sort=-version:subject
>
> for descending version-sort by subject.  And then as a special-case
> convenience, make "version" without a field default to
> "version:refname". There's no ambiguity because the set of comparison
> names and field-names is fixed, and we know there is no overlap.
>
> If want to, we can _also_ give a one-letter abbreviation to the
> comparison field, like:
>
>   --sort=v:subject
>
> but that is not necessary.

Why not reversed order? So its syntax could be

[ "-" ] FIELD [ ":" [ "version" | "v" ] ]

It fits better to current f-e-r syntax where modifiers are after the colon. And it avoids the possibility that someone adds field "version" and we can't tell what "version" is what.

-- 
Duy