Re: [PATCH] cherry-pick: add failing test for out-of-order pick

Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:

  $ git cherry-pick master..topic
  $ git cherry-pick topic ^master
  $ git cherry-pick ^master topic

So the order of the arguments specified on the command-line is
irrelevant in these cases.  However, there are cases where it is worth
paying attention to the order.  For instance:

This segue feels a bit unnatural.  I think the relevant point was that
early output from revision traversal (and perhaps some other things

--- I haven't checked) relies on commits having been inserted in a

topologically sorted order.

Anyway, I don't think the background is necessary --- the
one-paragraph description below stands well enough alone.

  $ git cherry-pick commit3 commit1 commit2

picks commits after sorting by date order, which is counter-intuitive.
Add a failing test to t3508 (cherry-pick-many-commits) documenting
this behavior.

Reported-by: SZEDER Gábor <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <redacted>
---

[...]

I would say "in the order requested" instead of the right order, since
it is not completely obvious to me what the right order is.

+	cat <<-\EOF >expected &&
+	[master OBJID] fourth
+	 Author: A U Thor [off-list ref]
+	 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
+	[master OBJID] second
+	 Author: A U Thor [off-list ref]
+	 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
+	[master OBJID] third
+	 Author: A U Thor [off-list ref]
+	 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
+	EOF

Why check all these details of formatting, instead of e.g. using "git
rev-list | git diff-tree -s --format=%s"?

[...]

+	test_cmp expected actual.fuzzy &&
+	check_head_differs_from second

Why make the same check twice?

Hope that helps,
Jonathan