pijul_org / pijul

#265 Merge pulled patches preserving the order of the remote

Opened by yory, on May 1, 2018
yory commented on May 1, 2018

I was skimming through this repo's log, and noticed that patches from a branch aren't always merged in chronological order, even if they are pulled together: for example my two patches 6CmNm5XtVmzQMKzPUCm7TZHEX4z7YaGGfaqeegcvGud5PXdVkEfgG8EV8uUXDEFkHuh3ByFYpFYFdWj8W6sjYng3 and 6hdqdA3zZLFXWkvMyeD4J4SzSfJ33QR1k1S6wDrEMLKeMuWvqBQoAPeaEAR6j77igi2ZvZBhMiwpuCWAXhfJJcu6 . Also 9KjUrxwi42B8DgXxhrGrhrzkaLUC7K5Uv9SnGuDzB9LH3e4Q2eaisd7mA5CpxGzwGUreDTKJo8jPJ361NDHd75SS with 7WTSAZozg8abgZAnEXfZ3XY52ca8w5HfyFdKo2rAR5BrdwdSz5c8EW2xaX3SKAmR84E7Z31VCZ3jg1JUy82UDur2\r+ \r + While this doesn't matter to pijul as patches commute, IMO it makes history convoluted for users.

lthms commented on May 2, 2018

I really agree with you. Better than chronological order, it would be even better that the order of the remote.\r + \r + I think the main reason why pijul is not doing that right now is that it relies on HashSet internally, so this order might be lost.\r+ \r + Anyway, that would be a very appreciated feature indeed!

yory commented on May 2, 2018

I edited the title as I like your suggestion better.

pmeunier commented on October 23, 2018

This has been solved a while ago, and I forgot to close. Feel free to reopen if not.

pmeunier closed this discussion on October 23, 2018