Hi Jon I guess the parent of both B~3 as well as C~6 is A2. So if, as you say, the time can be made identical, they should yield the same SHA1 IMHO. On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Antriksh Pany <antriksh.pany@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Instead of (what I initially expected): >>> >>> A--------o--------o--------o--------o(old B)--------o--------o--------o(old C) >>> >>> A2--------o--------o--------o--------B--------o--------o--------C >>> >>> >>> So what I am missing here? Aren't the new commits B~1, B~2, B~3 >>> identical to C~4, C~5, C~6 (respectively) in all ways so as to have >>> gotten them the same SHA1 and hence appear as what I expected them to >>> appear? >> >> No, they have a different commit time, which is also part of the hash. >> > > Of course, even if the commit time was forged to be the same, the > parent of B~3 is different to the parent of C~6 and since the parent > is also contributes bits to the respective hashes, B~3 will > necessarily (unlikely hash collisions excepted!) have a different hash > to C~6 > > jon. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html