Re: [PATCH 2/2] name-rev: favor describing with tags and use committer date to tiebreak

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 17, 2017, 22:43 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa88j5xsx.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd1df961c.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes:
> ...
>> Following your explanation this patch looks good to me and this fixes the
>> test failure. TBH I never thought about the difference of these commands
>> before. "rev" and "ref" sound so similar although they denote completely 
>> different things.
>
> Thanks for testing.
> ...
> Hence, I would really prefer not to commit mine myself.  I'd rather
> see somebody from git-p4 circle to come up with a version that is
> more in line with the way things are done in the existing code and
> send a tested version for me to apply.

Tentatively I queued my hack together with the name-rev thing on 'pu', and Travis seems to be OK with the result.

It would be nice if we can "fix" the use of "name-rev HEAD" in "git p4" sooner rather than later. If the code truly uses it to figure out what branch we are currently on and acts on it, as the name of that function suggests, it may be easy to construct a testcase where the code without the fix does a wrong thing (e.g. have two branches pointing at the same commit, and tell "git p4" to act on the one that sorts later in the "git branch --list" output; the command would act as if it were working on the other branch), and shows that the patch fixes that problem. That would be a bug worth fixing quickly regardless of the "name-rev" change michael wanted to make.

Thanks.