# [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch 3 messages from 2005-07-05 to 2005-07-05. Participants: Jon Seymour, Linus Torvalds. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/1108 ## Jon Seymour, 2005-07-05 01:06 Subject: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch Message-ID: <20050705010619.13581.qmail@blackcubes.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20050705010619.13581.qmail%40blackcubes.dyndns.org ``` 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 --- rev-list.c | 5 ++++- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) ed4451af196ea31ec0c6c7f663290a9b325482cd 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, 2005-07-05 23:21 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch Message-ID: <2cfc403205070516216b911160@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/2cfc403205070516216b911160%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20050705010619.13581.qmail@blackcubes.dyndns.org> ``` G'day Linus, Is there some reason why this didn't get applied? jon. On 7/5/05, Jon Seymour wrote: > > 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 ``` ## Linus Torvalds, 2005-07-05 23:43 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restore expected list order for --merge-order switch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.58.0507051642490.3570%40g5.osdl.org In-Reply-To: <2cfc403205070516216b911160@mail.gmail.com> ``` 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 ```