On 10 February 2010 11:57, Deryck Hodge <email address hidden> wrote:
> This is why I originally had used both datecreated and id sort, to make
> this predictable. In hindsight, I think Abel's suggestion is best --
> just sort on id desc. It's predictable and naturally reverse date
> ordered.
>
> We should fix this and then fix the test, since it's a fairly useless
> test now without bug numbers. I can do this later today if no one else
> has time.
Thanks, that would be great. I was going to do that yesterday after it
was suggested in the Bugs team standup but didn't get round to it.
On 10 February 2010 11:57, Deryck Hodge <email address hidden> wrote:
> This is why I originally had used both datecreated and id sort, to make
> this predictable. In hindsight, I think Abel's suggestion is best --
> just sort on id desc. It's predictable and naturally reverse date
> ordered.
>
> We should fix this and then fix the test, since it's a fairly useless
> test now without bug numbers. I can do this later today if no one else
> has time.
Thanks, that would be great. I was going to do that yesterday after it
was suggested in the Bugs team standup but didn't get round to it.