On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> ... so is a migration desired? Or just >> change the default for --no-walk from "sorted" to "unsorted" in git >> 2.0? > > I think the proper support for Johannes's case should give users > more control on what to sort on, and that switch should not be tied > to "--no-walk". After all, being able to sort commits in the result > of limit_list() with various criteria would equally useful as being > able to sort commits listed on the command line with --no-walk. > Think about what "git shortlog A..B" does, for example. It is like > first enumerating commits within the given range, and sorting the > result using author as the primary and then timestamp as the > secondary sort column. > > So let's not even think about migration, and go in the direction of > giving "--no-walk" two flavours, for now. Either it keeps the order > commits were given from the command line, or it does the default > sort using the timestamp. We can later add the --sort-on option that > would work with or without --no-walk for people who want output that > is differently sorted, but that is outside the scope of your series.
Makes sense. The shortlog example is a good example of sorting that completely reorders the commit graph sometimes even making sense for ranges. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html