On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:03:25AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > It may be esoteric enough not to worry about, though. By far the most > > common use of patch-ids is going to be in a single "rev-list > > --cherry-pick" situation where you are trying to omit commits during > > a rebase. > > > > I am mostly thinking of the problems we had with the "kup" tool, which > > expected stability across diffs that would be signed by both kernel.org. > > But as far as I know, they do not use patch-id. > > We can always do a compatibility option. --order-sensitive ? > --ignore-order ? That may make sense as an escape hatch in case somebody has a use we didn't foresee. If it is just about "consistent order" versus "whatever is in the diff", I do not know that we need to worry as much; only the minority using orderfile is affected, and they have _always_ been affected. IOW, we are fixing a bug, and they should be happier. But if it is changing the output entirely in all cases (e.g., the 1s-complement sum), I think you would want to have a "classic" mode that tries to be compatible with the old style (with the caveat that of course it depends on patch ordering). -Peff -- 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