Both points make sense and it sounds like a very pragmatic approach. I'll look into it!
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 02 2018, Harald Nordgren wrote: > >> In regards the the print statement, it was only moved down according >> to the diff because I added more logic above. Basically there is 1) >> the unrolling of the linked list to an array and 2) the printing >> logic. I could move it and make the diff smaller, but that probably >> makes the code a tiny bit more complicated. > > I was just wondering since it wasn't explained in the commit message, > makes sense to copy this explanation into v2, or lead with a purely code > re-arrangement patch. > >> It would be nice to have a uniform option like >> '--sort=version:refname'. But spending a few hours to look over the >> code, it seems that ls-remote.c would require a lot of rewrites if we >> wanted to start using `ref_array` and `ref_array_item` for storing the >> refs. >> >> Which seems necessary in order to hook in to the sorting flow used in >> other subcommands. That, or reimplement `cmp_ref_sorting`. But maybe >> I'm missing something? > > I'm thinking just in terms of UI. If it's the case that porting this to > whatever guts git-tag uses for sorting would be hard, then we could > still use the same command-line option convention (and perhaps just die > if anything except --sort=version:refname is supplied). Changing the > underlying implementation is easier than cleaning up UI-differences that > (seemingly) only arose due to underlying implementation details at the > time. > >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason >> <ava...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 02 2018, Harald Nordgren wrote: >>> >>>> Create the options '-V ' and '--version-sort' to sort >>>> 'git ls-remote' output by version semantics. This is useful e.g. for >>>> the Go repository after the release of version 1.10, where otherwise >>>> v1.10 is sorted before v1.2. See: >>>> >>>> $ git ls-remote -t https://go.googlesource.com/go >>>> ... >>>> 205f850ceacfc39d1e9d76a9569416284594ce8c refs/tags/go1.1 >>>> d260448f6b6ac10efe4ae7f6dfe944e72bc2a676 refs/tags/go1.1.1 >>>> 1d6d8fca241bb611af51e265c1b5a2e9ae904702 refs/tags/go1.1.2 >>>> bf86aec25972f3a100c3aa58a6abcbcc35bdea49 refs/tags/go1.10 >>>> ac7c0ee26dda18076d5f6c151d8f920b43340ae3 refs/tags/go1.10.1 >>>> 9ce6b5c2ed5d3d5251b9a6a0c548d5fb2c8567e8 refs/tags/go1.10beta1 >>>> 594668a5a96267a46282ce3007a584ec07adf705 refs/tags/go1.10beta2 >>>> 5348aed83e39bd1d450d92d7f627e994c2db6ebf refs/tags/go1.10rc1 >>>> 20e228f2fdb44350c858de941dff4aea9f3127b8 refs/tags/go1.10rc2 >>>> 1c5438aae896edcd1e9f9618f4776517f08053b3 refs/tags/go1.1rc2 >>>> 46a6097aa7943a490e9bd2e04274845d0e5e200f refs/tags/go1.1rc3 >>>> 402d3590b54e4a0df9fb51ed14b2999e85ce0b76 refs/tags/go1.2 >>>> 9c9802fad57c1bcb72ea98c5c55ea2652efc5772 refs/tags/go1.2.1 >>>> ... >>> >>> This is a sensible thing to want, but why not follow the UI we have for >>> this with git-tag? I.e. --sort=<key> & -i (or --ignore-case)? Of course >>> ls-remote doesn't just show tags, so maybe we'd want --tag-sort=<key> >>> and --ignore-tag-case or something, but the rest should be equivalent, >>> no? >>> >>>> [...] >>>> @@ -101,13 +115,22 @@ int cmd_ls_remote(int argc, const char **argv, const >>>> char *prefix) >>>> if (transport_disconnect(transport)) >>>> return 1; >>>> >>>> - if (!dest && !quiet) >>>> - fprintf(stderr, "From %s\n", *remote->url); >>>> for ( ; ref; ref = ref->next) { >>>> if (!check_ref_type(ref, flags)) >>>> continue; >>>> if (!tail_match(pattern, ref->name)) >>>> continue; >>>> + REALLOC_ARRAY(refs, nr + 1); >>>> + refs[nr++] = ref; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + if (version_sort) >>>> + QSORT(refs, nr, cmp_ref_versions); >>>> + >>>> + if (!dest && !quiet) >>>> + fprintf(stderr, "From %s\n", *remote->url); >>> >>> Is there some subtlety here I'm missing which means that when sorting >>> we'd now need to print this "From" line later (i.e. after sorting?
