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

> 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.