On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Karthik Nayak <karthik....@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> Hence, fallback to alphabetical comparison based on the refname >>>> whenever the other criterion is equal. Fix the test in t3203 in this >>>> regard. >>> >>> It is unclear what "in this regard" is. Do you mean this (I am not >>> suggesting you to spell these out in a very detailed way in the >>> final log message; I am deliberately being detailed here to help me >>> understand what you really mean)? >>> >>> A test in t3203 was expecting that branch-two sorts before HEAD, >>> which happened to be how qsort(3) on Linux sorted the array, but >>> (1) that outcome was not even guaranteed, and (2) once we start >>> breaking ties with the refname, "HEAD" should sort before >>> "branch-two" so the original expectation was inconsistent with >>> the criterion we now use. >>> >> >> Exactly what you're saying, they happened to have the same objectsize. >> Hence sorting them would put them together, but since we compare the >> refname's the "HEAD" ref would come before "branch-two". >> >>> Update it to match the new world order, which we can now depend >>> on being stable. >>> >>> I am not sure about "HEAD" and "branch-two" in the above (it may be >>> comparison between "HEAD" and "refs/heads/branch-two", for example). >> >> It actually is, we consider "refs/heads/branch-two rather then the shortened >> version of this. It makes sense to classify refs this way, even though this >> was a side effect of this commit. > > Now these are enough bits of info, that can and needs to be > condenced into an updated log message to help future readers. > > Thanks.
Will update and send, thanks :) -- Regards, Karthik Nayak -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
