Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:37:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >>>> Then start over with sorted hunks (for example >>>> building a table of offsets within the patch for each hunk to >>>> support this). [...] > Well, then the result is not compatible with what > original patch-id would produce. Nope, I meant sorting to produce what the original patch-id would produce for a diff with the default sorting order. The result is a patch-id that can be compared with patch-ids from earlier versions of git as long as -O<orderfile> was not used (which was already not compatible with reliable use of patch-id). [...] > Just making sure: is it correct that there's no requirement to use same > algorithm between patch-ids.c and builtin/patch-id.c ? I think so, as long as Documentation/git-cherry.txt is updated to stop pretending 'git cherry' calls 'git patch-id' and the two get comments about it, though it seems simpler to keep them roughly the same. (They already differ in handling of binary files.) Thanks, Jonathan -- 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