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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9E31F4C0 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:49:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730104AbfJUTtW (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:49:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63653 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728543AbfJUTtW (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:49:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA962AE70; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:49:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=cnzzhl9a7MEiVWj9XyVOOV+5fTk=; b=xUmP62 qNGPGR0q3ex435ToprAsApx7D7WMnJT8n3IaJ2tyPwp38jtpalTDQ7OHipN8b6Z1 ViTjJjO6GSm48F9FD/X2Ua3yt/0VSS9c+QyPbslfdI6g7Z/lqkrrWGHj7gPuaA0M 23oL25VwPkQBU/J3NVSoy5IfAvoFK5D4SMNEg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=GzCqTFYP40IHB9Oue9Se6vhM/CetJh84 EJ1VylAbuwrDyit3PynbRkC1ew1WHX85ldjrvZHFeCSbUcKLk1dyBr6s5CNWsogc OStHllILxvgYJg6QUio11f1ES+J4ho/Vd/X1bbqj6pXwtTw3nfSnXGrCTsakjIMK W5Qo804zKlI= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6C02AE6F; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:49:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C64522AE6E; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:49:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Denton Liu , Git Mailing List , Alban Gruin Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] Makefile: alphabetically sort += lists References: <02a16f9bdf740841d9a4be765e72b9fa5ae5d75c.1571246693.git.liu.denton@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 04:49:19 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:44:40 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DFE82786-F43B-11E9-963D-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> ... I do not particularly see this change (there may be similar >> ones) desirable. I'd find it it be much more natural to sort >> "commit-anything" after "commit", and that is true with or without >> the common extension ".o" added to these entries. >> >> In short, flipping these entries because '.' sorts later than '-' is >> making the result look "less sorted", at least to me. > > The problem with this argument is that it disagrees with ASCII, as `-` > has code 0x2d while `.` has code 0x2e, i.e. it is lexicographically > _larger_. I am saying that sorting these in ASCII order did not produce result that is easy to the eyes. You are saying that Denton's patch sorted these lines in ASCII order. I agree with you that it did correctly sort them in ASCII order. That does not make the patch right ;-)