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=-4.2 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 DB96B20951 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 22:43:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751331AbdCQWnq (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:43:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:59515 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751269AbdCQWnp (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:43:45 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C1578B32; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:43:44 -0400 (EDT) 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=ic8T8Hc4Adlklb+Lw3OTEzeoSng=; b=imDDuO XGRN0BdOXuAQ9uLv/p5mkgPHQCa5AnZrRmIc8n39hJ+7yeZx6mhiQ24RlCb6Kzxa jdQ9uFYiWTYLHpheezi4n7SONfDKpIytgP/5kRDiwImoj+lIsFrGuNNHARQ5/M5v bJzWOBKGFBaX/a8kJXRzkfClIUgvJ8/xTf5Ws= 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=MW9AG+fubh9u9+mgFF3C3YhOZcxDokBe 96eK58tDRS5SJ5UMP3Ggog0klpy0VH6blcTPuVwOcb9u2gcxMs0inn1WLHc4Djfa FXOLe5xT8wQuDwUAH89IbQV3ybFHy3wTIDq+08xHXE5e+HY2gC0lU9lDC1tEP43k 61nkxW7BytY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D09378B31; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71A5A78B30; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:43:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Lars Schneider Cc: Git Mailing List , Michael J Gruber , Luke Diamand Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] name-rev: favor describing with tags and use committer date to tiebreak References: <20170315225045.15788-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20170315225045.15788-3-gitster@pobox.com> <9AE7ADCA-97F9-4857-AC55-76C4BD822C25@gmail.com> <015A7026-960F-450C-9276-AAC3A0B11207@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:43:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:17:35 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2C86730A-0B63-11E7-BA35-FC50AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Lars Schneider writes: > ... >> Following your explanation this patch looks good to me and this fixes the >> test failure. TBH I never thought about the difference of these commands >> before. "rev" and "ref" sound so similar although they denote completely >> different things. > > Thanks for testing. > ... > Hence, I would really prefer not to commit mine myself. I'd rather > see somebody from git-p4 circle to come up with a version that is > more in line with the way things are done in the existing code and > send a tested version for me to apply. Tentatively I queued my hack together with the name-rev thing on 'pu', and Travis seems to be OK with the result. It would be nice if we can "fix" the use of "name-rev HEAD" in "git p4" sooner rather than later. If the code truly uses it to figure out what branch we are currently on and acts on it, as the name of that function suggests, it may be easy to construct a testcase where the code without the fix does a wrong thing (e.g. have two branches pointing at the same commit, and tell "git p4" to act on the one that sorts later in the "git branch --list" output; the command would act as if it were working on the other branch), and shows that the patch fixes that problem. That would be a bug worth fixing quickly regardless of the "name-rev" change michael wanted to make. Thanks.