Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] port the filtering part of branch.c to use ref-filter APIs

From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 21, 2015, 10:15 UTC
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZQjO9z_wDpN6dqpu+VAUG91ROsWrdE6O=28tOjKiNEqYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpqfv28e1ex.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:

Show 33 quoted lines

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Matthieu Moy
>> <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> --- a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
>>>> +++ b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh
>>>> @@ -145,8 +145,8 @@ EOF
>>>>
>>>>  test_expect_success 'git branch `--sort` option' '
>>>>       cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
>>>> -     * (HEAD detached from fromtag)
>>>>         branch-two
>>>> +     * (HEAD detached from fromtag)
>>>>         branch-one
>>>>         master
>>>>       EOF
>>>
>>> I thought this was obviously wrong, but this tests uses
>>> --sort=objectsize, so it's OK. Indeed, HEAD and branch-one have
>>> objectsize=215, and branch-two has objectsize=167.
>>>
>>> So, the previous code was hardcoding "detached HEAD always comes first",
>>> but we now sort the whole list, including detached HEAD, so branch-two
>>> comes first.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah! Even Junio said this was better, and even I think this is what
>> the user would expect.
>
> Yes, that was not an objection, just me thinking aloud during my review.
>

I know, I was just stating it, for others.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak