[MERGE] forward-sorting puts mainline revisions first

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> This is very nice, but I think it is incomplete. At each level, the
> children should be sorted with their parents. This is actually the same
> problem as our 'dir_sorted' issue. Only we don't easily have a prefix
> that we can use.

I guess it depends what you see as an 'entry'.  I've been considering
all the text from revno 1800 to revno 1799 as its 'entry', and so this
patch gives you the same 'entry', whether you're sorting forwards or
backwards.

I could go either way on this.

> If it isn't clear, this is my idea, if we have a double nested merge,
> when we reverse it, we should reverse each chunk separately, and keep it

> I'll +1 you, just to get what you've done. But more as a stopgap than
> because I think it is perfect.

See attached.  I love the smell of burning ponies in the morning.  It
smells like victory.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEnCRX0F+nu1YWqI0RAr09AJ9QsZePzL/TD2j7xPK9ZCvLlS/RlgCfST2f
5EeOmbej6R8cT9zjaH/Jxbc=
=AawS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sort-by-depth.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 13953 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060623/dc5d8431/attachment.bin