threads / patch / 1108

patchRestore expected list order for --merge-order switch

Subject: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch

## tl;dr

3 messages between Jul 5, 2005 and Jul 5, 2005. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Jon Seymour· Jul 5, 2005, 01:06 UTC · lore

A recent change to rev-list altered the order in which start points are presented to the merge-order sort algorithm. This caused breaks in the t/t6001 unit tests.

This change restores the order in which start points are presented to the the merge-order sort algorithm (but leaves the order unchanged from the immediately preceding behaviour for non --merge-order sorts).

The order in which arguments are presented to the merge-order sort algorithm is significant, since left-most arguments are expected to sort last so as to be consistent with how left-most parents sort.

Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
---

 rev-list.c |    5 ++++-
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

ed4451af196ea31ec0c6c7f663290a9b325482cd

Show changes to rev-list.c +4 −1

diff --git a/rev-list.c b/rev-list.c
--- a/rev-list.c
+++ b/rev-list.c
@@ -482,7 +482,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 		commit = get_commit_reference(arg, flags);
 		if (!commit)
 			continue;
-		insert_by_date(&list, commit);
+		if (!merge_order) 
+			insert_by_date(&list, commit);
+		else
+			commit_list_insert(commit, &list);
 	}
 
 	if (!merge_order) {		
------------

Jon Seymour· Jul 5, 2005, 23:21 UTC · re: Jon Seymour · lore

Re: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch

G'day Linus,

Is there some reason why this didn't get applied?

jon.

On 7/5/05, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> 
> A recent change to rev-list altered the order in which start points
> are presented to the merge-order sort algorithm. This caused
> breaks in the t/t6001 unit tests.
> 
> This change restores the order in which start points are presented to the
> the merge-order sort algorithm (but leaves the order unchanged from
> the immediately preceding behaviour for non --merge-order sorts).
> 
> The order in which arguments are presented to the merge-order
> sort algorithm is significant, since left-most arguments
> are expected to sort last so as to be consistent with
> how left-most parents sort.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>

Linus Torvalds· Jul 5, 2005, 23:43 UTC · re: Jon Seymour · lore

Re: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Jon Seymour wrote:

> 
> Is there some reason why this didn't get applied?

I think it's horribly horribly ugly.

I really don't see the point of argument ordering mattering, and I think the test is broken. Convince me otherwise.

		Linus