On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Karthik Nayak writes:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Hence, fallback to alphabetical comparison based on the refname
whenever the other
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Junio C Hamano 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
>
Karthik Nayak writes:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Junio C Hamano 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
Karthik Nayak writes:
> In ref-filter.c the comparison of refs while sorting is handled by
> cmp_ref_sorting() function. When sorting as per numerical values
> (e.g. --sort=objectsize) there is no fallback comparison when both
> refs hold the same value. This can cause
In ref-filter.c the comparison of refs while sorting is handled by
cmp_ref_sorting() function. When sorting as per numerical values
(e.g. --sort=objectsize) there is no fallback comparison when both
refs hold the same value. This can cause unexpected results (i.e. the
order of listing refs with
5 matches
Mail list logo