Subject: Re: for-each-ref output order change in 2.7.0

From: Johannes Sixt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:00:50 +0100

Am 09.01.2016 um 18:21 schrieb Karthik Nayak:
>>> (Note: The alphabetical-ness of the branch names is reversed, which
>>> seems logical given my original sort was -committerdate. A
>>> --sort=refname looks like this.
>>>
>>> refs/heads/!@#$% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
>>> refs/heads/!@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:04:06 2012 +1100
>>> refs/heads/% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
>>> refs/heads/@#$% - >Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
>>> refs/heads/@#% -> Tue Jan 3 17:00:51 2012 +1100
>>>
>>> That's probably more correct too.)
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bryan Turner
>
> This is correct as per the patch, But I'm wondering if this is desired.
> I.E when sorting in reverse order should the fallback (alphabetical sort)
> also be in reverse order?

IMO, the fallback sorting should be in reverse order only when the user 
explicitley asked for reverse order. Just because committer date implies 
some "reverse" ordering should not imply that refs with the same 
committer date should also be listed in reverse alphabetical order.

-- Hannes