Martin von Zweigbergk <> writes:

> There is also cherry-pick/revert, which I _think_ does not really want
> the revisions sorted.

Yes, I think sequencer.c::prepare_revs() is wrong to unconditoinally
call prepare_revision_walk().

It instead should first check the revs->pending.objects list to see
if what was given by the caller is a mere collection of individual
objects or a range expression (i.e. check if any of them is marked
with UNINTERESTING), and refrain from going into the body of the
preparation steps, which has to involve sorting.

I think we had to fix a bug in "git show" coming from a similar root
cause, but the bug manifested in the opposite direction.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to