From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2636B1F670 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:54:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231566AbhJUO4x (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:56:53 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:43668 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230072AbhJUO4v (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:56:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 15893 invoked by uid 109); 21 Oct 2021 14:54:34 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:54:34 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 7209 invoked by uid 111); 21 Oct 2021 14:54:33 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.1.3) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:54:33 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:54:33 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] for-each-ref: delay parsing of --sort= options Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:32:21PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Yeah, I faced something similar with 7c5045fc18 (ref-filter: apply > > fallback refname sort only after all user sorts, 2020-05-03). I suspect > > you could use the same keys as those tests, though I am OK if we simply > > leave it as a quietly-fixed bug. > > Ah, I guess I can cheat and add a new test after these. > > If --no-sort weren't taking effect, the expected outcome would be > the asme as the previous step this copied from, but with --no-sort > clearing the sort keys, we sort by taggerdate and then tiebreak with > the refname, and taggeremail does not get into the picture (other > than being repeated at the end of the refname). Yeah, I think what you have here makes sense. It's too bad we can't run it on the "before" state to double-check that we are triggering the old breakage, but there is simply no "--no-sort" at all before your patch (which is good, because it would have been broken ;) ). -Peff