From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 04:30:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] pretty: add %D format specifier
Message-ID: <xmqqy4tizx51.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqegvb2yza.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

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

>> +test_expect_success 'clean log decoration' '
>> +	git log --no-walk --tags --pretty="%H %D" --decorate=full >actual &&
>> +	cat <<EOF >expected &&
>> +$head1 tag: refs/tags/tag2
>> +$head2 tag: refs/tags/message-one
>> +$old_head1 tag: refs/tags/message-two
>> +EOF
> ...
> Hmph.  I actually think the part that prepares the history makes
> sure that the output order of the commits is predictable by using
> test_commit and test_tick.  I see existing tests at the end (which
> is a sign that they were added more recently than the rest of the
> test script, and can indicate a careless addition) already has
> "sort", but we shouldn't have to sort.

Actually --tags may feed the tips in unspecified order and --no-walk
ensures the commits will be shown in that unspecified order, so for
a test that runs "log --no-walk --tags", sorting is unavoidable.