# for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 6 messages from 2016-01-09 to 2016-01-10. Participants: Bryan Turner, Matthieu Moy, Karthik Nayak, Johannes Sixt. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/41154 ## Bryan Turner, 2016-01-09 01:07 Subject: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAGyf7-FSP3Z7HO%3DLpoQck8q9sSj3fGYCx1%3DgNa6fXEkovxAxHw%40mail.gmail.com ``` In one of our tests, we have a set of branches whose names are all special characters (%, @, etc). Most of them branches have identical tip commits and just have different names. In 2.7.0, when ordering by -committerdate, the branches are now returned in a different order. I don't think this is a bug, based on the commit it bisects to, but I'm wondering if someone can confirm. 2.6.5 and prior (tested all the way back to 1.7.6, so this was consistent for a long time): refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 2.7.0: refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 I've bisected this back to: bturner@ubuntu:~/Development/oss/git/git$ git bisect bad 9e468334b41c1d1fc715de177ef1f61a36c1cf01 is the first bad commit commit 9e468334b41c1d1fc715de177ef1f61a36c1cf01 Author: Karthik Nayak Date: Fri Oct 30 14:15:28 2015 +0530 ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison The message for that commit indicates that sorting numerics (which I assume is the implementation for committerdate) now falls back on alphabetical for identical values, suggesting this order change is actually intentional and correct. Is that right? (Note: The alphabetical-ness of the branch names is reversed, which seems logical given my original sort was -committerdate. A --sort=refname looks like this. refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/@#$% - >Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 That's probably more correct too.) Best regards, Bryan Turner ``` ## Matthieu Moy, 2016-01-09 15:40 Subject: Re: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 Message-ID: <1674931730.811704.1452354002885.JavaMail.zimbra@imag.fr> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1674931730.811704.1452354002885.JavaMail.zimbra%40imag.fr In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, Cc-ing Karthik to draw his attention on the message. ----- Original Message ----- > In one of our tests, we have a set of branches whose names are all > special characters (%, @, etc). Most of them branches have identical > tip commits and just have different names. In 2.7.0, when ordering by > -committerdate, the branches are now returned in a different order. I > don't think this is a bug, based on the commit it bisects to, but I'm > wondering if someone can confirm. > > 2.6.5 and prior (tested all the way back to 1.7.6, so this was > consistent for a long time): > > refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > > 2.7.0: > > refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > > I've bisected this back to: > > bturner@ubuntu:~/Development/oss/git/git$ git bisect bad > 9e468334b41c1d1fc715de177ef1f61a36c1cf01 is the first bad commit > commit 9e468334b41c1d1fc715de177ef1f61a36c1cf01 > Author: Karthik Nayak > Date: Fri Oct 30 14:15:28 2015 +0530 > > ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison > > The message for that commit indicates that sorting numerics (which I > assume is the implementation for committerdate) now falls back on > alphabetical for identical values, suggesting this order change is > actually intentional and correct. And also that the previous order was arbitrary (just letting the sort algorithm chose which one to put first in case of equality on the main sorting criterion), so the fact that it was stable previously is more or less just luck. Now it should be stable. > Is that right? > > (Note: The alphabetical-ness of the branch names is reversed, which > seems logical given my original sort was -committerdate. A > --sort=refname looks like this. > > refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/@#$% - >Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 > > That's probably more correct too.) > > Best regards, > Bryan Turner -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ ``` ## Karthik Nayak, 2016-01-09 17:21 Subject: Re: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAOLa%3DZT7n8qCoS81iijf9vswWV%2BS8n7%3D4kmbKP0EAMnOenXwSg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1674931730.811704.1452354002885.JavaMail.zimbra@imag.fr> ``` Hello, On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Hi, > > Cc-ing Karthik to draw his attention on the message. > Thanks, I didn't really notice it. > ----- Original Message ----- >> In one of our tests, we have a set of branches whose names are all >> special characters (%, @, etc). Most of them branches have identical >> tip commits and just have different names. In 2.7.0, when ordering by >> -committerdate, the branches are now returned in a different order. I >> don't think this is a bug, based on the commit it bisects to, but I'm >> wondering if someone can confirm. >> >> 2.6.5 and prior (tested all the way back to 1.7.6, so this was >> consistent for a long time): >> >> refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> >> 2.7.0: >> >> refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> >> I've bisected this back to: >> >> bturner@ubuntu:~/Development/oss/git/git$ git bisect bad >> 9e468334b41c1d1fc715de177ef1f61a36c1cf01 is the first bad commit >> commit 9e468334b41c1d1fc715de177ef1f61a36c1cf01 >> Author: Karthik Nayak >> Date: Fri Oct 30 14:15:28 2015 +0530 >> >> ref-filter: fallback on alphabetical comparison >> >> The message for that commit indicates that sorting numerics (which I >> assume is the implementation for committerdate) now falls back on >> alphabetical for identical values, suggesting this order change is >> actually intentional and correct. > > And also that the previous order was arbitrary (just letting the sort > algorithm chose which one to put first in case of equality on the main > sorting criterion), so the fact that it was stable previously is more > or less just luck. Now it should be stable. > >> Is that right? >> Yup, absolutely. >> (Note: The alphabetical-ness of the branch names is reversed, which >> seems logical given my original sort was -committerdate. A >> --sort=refname looks like this. >> >> refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/@#$% - >Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >> >> That's probably more correct too.) >> >> Best regards, >> Bryan Turner This is correct as per the patch, But I'm wondering if this is desired. I.E when sorting in reverse order should the fallback (alphabetical sort) also be in reverse order? -- Regards, Karthik Nayak ``` ## Johannes Sixt, 2016-01-09 18:00 Subject: Re: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 Message-ID: <56914AD2.9060303@kdbg.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/56914AD2.9060303%40kdbg.org In-Reply-To: ``` Am 09.01.2016 um 18:21 schrieb Karthik Nayak: >>> (Note: The alphabetical-ness of the branch names is reversed, which >>> seems logical given my original sort was -committerdate. A >>> --sort=refname looks like this. >>> >>> refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>> refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 >>> refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>> refs/heads/@#$% - >Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>> refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>> >>> That's probably more correct too.) >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Bryan Turner > > This is correct as per the patch, But I'm wondering if this is desired. > I.E when sorting in reverse order should the fallback (alphabetical sort) > also be in reverse order? IMO, the fallback sorting should be in reverse order only when the user explicitley asked for reverse order. Just because committer date implies some "reverse" ordering should not imply that refs with the same committer date should also be listed in reverse alphabetical order. -- Hannes ``` ## Karthik Nayak, 2016-01-09 21:29 Subject: Re: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAOLa%3DZTUcmAjpC4nf_o7ZAHC3Asj9iwfKOOrJr90_kAyMbd22A%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <56914AD2.9060303@kdbg.org> ``` On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 09.01.2016 um 18:21 schrieb Karthik Nayak: >>>> >>>> (Note: The alphabetical-ness of the branch names is reversed, which >>>> seems logical given my original sort was -committerdate. A >>>> --sort=refname looks like this. >>>> >>>> refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>>> refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 >>>> refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>>> refs/heads/@#$% - >Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>>> refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>>> >>>> That's probably more correct too.) >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Bryan Turner >> >> >> This is correct as per the patch, But I'm wondering if this is desired. >> I.E when sorting in reverse order should the fallback (alphabetical sort) >> also be in reverse order? > > > IMO, the fallback sorting should be in reverse order only when the user > explicitley asked for reverse order. Just because committer date implies > some "reverse" ordering should not imply that refs with the same committer > date should also be listed in reverse alphabetical order. > > -- Hannes > I was thinking along the same lines. But do we want to expose the fallback to the user (i.e let them choose if its reversible or not)? If not Its only a small change required: diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c index cc850b0..59d43d7 100644 --- a/ref-filter.c +++ b/ref-filter.c @@ -1554,7 +1554,7 @@ static int cmp_ref_sorting(struct ref_sorting *s, struct ref_array_item *a, stru if (va->ul < vb->ul) cmp = -1; else if (va->ul == vb->ul) - cmp = strcmp(a->refname, b->refname); + return strcmp(a->refname, b->refname); else cmp = 1; } I could send a patch, as soon as we decide if we want to stick something simple like this or expose the fallback sort to the user. -- Regards, Karthik Nayak ``` ## Johannes Sixt, 2016-01-10 09:51 Subject: Re: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0 Message-ID: <569229B8.9000009@kdbg.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/569229B8.9000009%40kdbg.org In-Reply-To: ``` Am 09.01.2016 um 22:29 schrieb Karthik Nayak: > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> Am 09.01.2016 um 18:21 schrieb Karthik Nayak: >>>>> >>>>> (Note: The alphabetical-ness of the branch names is reversed, which >>>>> seems logical given my original sort was -committerdate. A >>>>> --sort=refname looks like this. After reading up on branch sorting, I notice that the single dash in front of committerdate is not a typo, but a request to sort in reverse. Therefore, the resulting sort order, which was refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 is totally correct. >>>>> >>>>> refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>>>> refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100 >>>>> refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>>>> refs/heads/@#$% - >Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>>>> refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100 >>>>> >>>>> That's probably more correct too.) But I don't know what would be "more" correct here. It's simply correct. >>> This is correct as per the patch, But I'm wondering if this is desired. >>> I.E when sorting in reverse order should the fallback (alphabetical sort) >>> also be in reverse order? >> >> >> IMO, the fallback sorting should be in reverse order only when the user >> explicitley asked for reverse order. Just because committer date implies >> some "reverse" ordering should not imply that refs with the same committer >> date should also be listed in reverse alphabetical order. I was wrong here. Sorting by committerdate does not imply reverse-ness. I just did not know enough about the --sort options when I wrote this paragraph. > > I was thinking along the same lines. But do we want to expose the fallback to > the user (i.e let them choose if its reversible or not)? No, we do not want to expose the fallback to the user. And as far as I can see, no further change is required. -- Hannes ```