Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] patch-id: make it stable against hunk reordering

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Should the internal patch-id computation used by commands like 'git
> cherry' (see diff.c::diff_get_patch_id) get the same change?  (Not a
> rhetorical question --- I don't know what the right choice would be
> there.)

I thought about it but I did not think of a reason why.  If we do
not store the patch-id (it would be a misnomer especially after this
series, it is mor like patch signature), and we generate the patch
to be hashed internally without getting affected by any user input
given per-invocation, then nothing is externally observable even if
we used two completely different definition of patch id computation,
and I think these preconditions do hold.

--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]