I'm actually surprised that the patch changes the order at all, since all it does is affect the decision (on a yes/no basis) to include a given file into a changelist. I'm going to have a look at that specific unit test, but of course as a user I'd prefer if the default behaviour could remain the same, unless it was actually a bug.
-- Sam. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015, James Farwell wrote: > I'm not sure if my opinion as an outsider is of use, but since the perforce > change number is monotonically increasing, my expectation as a user would be > for them to be applied in order by the perforce change number. :) > > - James > > ________________________________________ > From: Luke Diamand <l...@diamand.org> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 3:09 PM > To: Junio C Hamano > Cc: Git Users; James Farwell; Lars Schneider; Eric Sunshine; Sam Hocevar > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] git-p4: fix for handling of multiple depot paths > > Sorry - I've just run the tests, and this change causes one of the > test cases in t9800-git-p4-basic.sh to fail. > > It looks like the test case makes an assumption about who wins if two > P4 depots have changes to files that end up in the same place, and > this change reverses the order. It may actually be fine, but it needs > to be thought about a bit. > > Sam - do you have any thoughts on this? > > Thanks > Luke > > > > > > > On 14 December 2015 at 22:06, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > > Luke Diamand <l...@diamand.org> writes: > > > >> On 14 December 2015 at 19:16, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > >>> Luke Diamand <l...@diamand.org> writes: > >>> > >>>> Having just fixed this, I've now just spotted that Sam Hocevar's fix > >>>> to reduce the number of P4 transactions also fixes it: > >>>> > >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mail-2Darchive.com_git-2540vger.kernel.org_msg81880.html&d=BQIBaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=wkCayFhpIBdAOEa7tZDTcd1weqwtiFMEIQTL-WQPwC4&m=q8dsOAHvUiDzzPNGRAfMMrcXstxNlI-v7I_03uEL1e8&s=C8wVLMC-iU7We0r36sxOuu920ZjZYdpy7ysNi_5PYv8&e= > >>>> > >>>> That seems like a cleaner fix. > >>> > >>> Hmm, do you mean I should ignore this series and take the other one, > >>> take only 1/2 from this for tests and then both patches in the other > >>> one, or something else? > >> > >> The second of those (take only 1/2 from this for tests, and then both > >> from the other) seems like the way to go. > > > > OK. Should I consider the two patches from Sam "Reviewed-by" you? echo "creationism" | tr -d "holy godly goal" -- 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
