From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E69A1F43C for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754322AbdKNTwu (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:52:50 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]:43293 "EHLO mail-io0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753115AbdKNTws (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:52:48 -0500 Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 134so25666536ioo.0 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:52:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PHpSnhoSapHA20Fq91hzVjkA5Zt2vyc+xiQZBXbwoN8=; b=RJCQYljy5Dpa8RE/ApzfF520Pn8uQorSk42mcLI0sg0Z5tFCy2DG1gG0CBMBf8WsWE ZYyQ9OIvtvSnIqWXY1SvbkfGoPp6ZBIJLKCHsWrGW43u6h0YAZugwW2DUb+M24SFvI+X cU8IXDLByD91gSXeYrdZMPDHpSP1SULsUE56Z7G+25F0PbL+AubLQUecnM+hrXwOvD3L 3opaXwHV6jyENP8gIl5SVf4izNOIyZLxqQj9eRT79wY6+8WheYzlerCGBJjqHR7Na7Hi KYbCsUXa1engpxc9pqoUNEozVml1wYOKTMTDYSxDl5xsYtm6cSKoSYAZOnQY/dGp0Z2p WDEA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PHpSnhoSapHA20Fq91hzVjkA5Zt2vyc+xiQZBXbwoN8=; b=Y/jWqd8o8ps4SziHFaS4EMnY1CofkwqwmhnQBGPXNDmSHfd17D4zfrIcpj8e2Mh20J G3oVjNmKa3DtW/iALzrgfQLI60n+pahsSk2/eURgHNdRm61UWyyNlMUD8Jk9ZJvtDAlE FWnCDBBdj4N6rTCIGUvAq4JWCroIttUc0WhgkHERwY72szGrNnTJooFnGh5cuIyhMjaU JZZcCGCFO16GCRKSUvBFptwpi30mohHS8WxKR/EflMWP9DTZAdR6+BwYhoSoDBwikwC9 zUeMaddFBm4Zt4ip3N0OJFrFMI9Mk/FypDjYK00OXi7W1/qJH3z9SSbXPe8ETpqpwBm+ qDcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7UyEfz4bJTkFbZ+VMebs6GiASdEiJmYKj+Y56fVN46tWCEiJnH QHZo5CBsn6sE7+L1Rv5TKrYNHA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbkEuQ0TLj1FTN0S1CSOLPyYTOwILqaaHKoIwO0IoQi91P9kG4hyS/rIbtUVB6IgYYSw4JjAQ== X-Received: by 10.107.22.69 with SMTP id 66mr15609372iow.150.1510689167526; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from twelve3.mtv.corp.google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:9ca7:c33c:854a:a353]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i62sm8796716ioe.31.2017.11.14.11.52.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:52:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:52:45 -0800 From: Jonathan Tan To: Stefan Beller Cc: Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, git@vger.kernel.org, jacob.keller@gmail.com, me@ikke.info, schwab@linux-m68k.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 3/7] revision.h: introduce blob/tree walking in order of the commits Message-Id: <20171114115245.d150b8f741b6f809951cbec1@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20171102194148.2124-4-sbeller@google.com> References: <20171031211852.13001-1-sbeller@google.com> <20171102194148.2124-1-sbeller@google.com> <20171102194148.2124-4-sbeller@google.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:41:44 -0700 Stefan Beller wrote: > @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ void traverse_commit_list(struct rev_info *revs, > if (commit->tree) > add_pending_tree(revs, commit->tree); > show_commit(commit, data); > + if (revs->tree_blobs_in_commit_order) > + traverse_trees_and_blobs(revs, &csp, show_object, data); > } > traverse_trees_and_blobs(revs, &csp, show_object, data); > I would have expected add_pending_tree() above to no longer be invoked. If it still needs to be invoked, maybe add an explanation in the form of a comment or commit message. > +test_expect_success 'rev-list --in-commit-order' ' > + for x in one two three four > + do > + echo $x >$x && > + git add $x && > + git commit -m "add file $x" || > + return 1 > + done && > + for x in four three > + do > + git rm $x && > + git commit -m "remove $x" || > + return 1 > + done && > + git rev-list --in-commit-order --objects HEAD >actual.raw && > + cut -c 1-40 >actual + > + git cat-file --batch-check="%(objectname)" >expect.raw <<-\EOF && > + HEAD^{commit} > + HEAD^{tree} > + HEAD^{tree}:one > + HEAD^{tree}:two > + HEAD~1^{commit} > + HEAD~1^{tree} > + HEAD~1^{tree}:three > + HEAD~2^{commit} > + HEAD~2^{tree} > + HEAD~2^{tree}:four > + HEAD~3^{commit} > + # HEAD~3^{tree} skipped, same as HEAD~1^{tree} > + HEAD~4^{commit} > + # HEAD~4^{tree} skipped, same as HEAD^{tree} > + HEAD~5^{commit} > + HEAD~5^{tree} > + EOF > + grep -v "#" >expect + > + test_cmp expect actual > +' Would it be useful to have another test without --in-commit-order, so that we can see the difference (and ensure that existing behavior is unchanged)?