Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-15 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: To connect to the other mail I sent on this thread (in parallel with yours), do you think git cherrry-pick HEAD HEAD~1 should apply the commits in the same

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-15 Thread Junio C Hamano
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: So all of the above case give the right result in the end as long as the timestamps are chronological, and case 1) gives the right result regardless. The other two cases only works in most cases because the unexpcted sorting when

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-15 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: So all of the above case give the right result in the end as long as the timestamps are chronological, and case 1) gives the right result regardless. The

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-15 Thread Junio C Hamano
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: Makes sense, I'll try to implement it that way. I was afraid that we would need to call prepare_revision_walk() once first and then if we afterwards find out that we should not walk, we would need to call it again without the

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-15 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: Makes sense, I'll try to implement it that way. I was afraid that we would need to call prepare_revision_walk() once first and then if we afterwards find out

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
y...@google.com writes: From: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com 'git cherry-pick' internally sets the --reverse option while walking revisions, so that 'git cherry-pick branch@{u}..branch' will apply the revisions starting at the oldest one. If no uninteresing revisions

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:27 PM, y...@google.com wrote: From: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com 'git cherry-pick' internally sets the --reverse option while walking revisions, so that 'git cherry-pick branch@{u}..branch' will apply the revisions starting at the oldest

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-13 Thread Martin von Zweigbergk
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: y...@google.com writes: From: Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com 'git cherry-pick' internally sets the --reverse option while walking revisions, so that 'git cherry-pick branch@{u}..branch' will apply

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: By the way, I can see the usefulness of --reverse when giving a range, but I think it's a little confusing when not giving a range. git rev-list --reverse --root v1.0.0 is a way to say give me a list of commits to be replayed in

Re: [PATCH 2/4] revisions passed to cherry-pick should be in default order

2012-08-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Martin von Zweigbergk martin.von.zweigbe...@gmail.com writes: To connect to the other mail I sent on this thread (in parallel with yours), do you think git cherrry-pick HEAD HEAD~1 should apply the commits in the same order as git cherry-pick HEAD~2..HEAD (which would give the same result if