Re: [PATCH v3] ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Hence, fallback to alphabetical comparison based on the refname
>>>> whenever the other criterion is equal. Fix the test in t3203 in this
>>>> regard.
>>>
>>> It is unclear what "in this regard" is.  Do you mean this (I am not
>>> suggesting you to spell these out in a very detailed way in the
>>> final log message; I am deliberately being detailed here to help me
>>> understand what you really mean)?
>>>
>>>     A test in t3203 was expecting that branch-two sorts before HEAD,
>>>     which happened to be how qsort(3) on Linux sorted the array, but
>>>     (1) that outcome was not even guaranteed, and (2) once we start
>>>     breaking ties with the refname, "HEAD" should sort before
>>>     "branch-two" so the original expectation was inconsistent with
>>>     the criterion we now use.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly what you're saying, they happened to have the same objectsize.
>> Hence sorting them would put them together, but since we compare the
>> refname's the "HEAD" ref would come before "branch-two".
>>
>>>     Update it to match the new world order, which we can now depend
>>>     on being stable.
>>>
>>> I am not sure about "HEAD" and "branch-two" in the above (it may be
>>> comparison between "HEAD" and "refs/heads/branch-two", for example).
>>
>> It actually is, we consider "refs/heads/branch-two rather then the shortened
>> version of this. It makes sense to classify refs this way, even though this
>> was a side effect of this commit.
>
> Now these are enough bits of info, that can and needs to be
> condenced into an updated log message to help future readers.
>
> Thanks.