"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The hash of the source file isn't generally as much of a problem, > because the patch tends to change, even incidentally (line numbers and > such), when the hash of the file changes. It's also something that we > have in our history, whereas the temporary branch we rebased in is not. That is exactly the kind of workflow specific reasoning that tells you "object name of the commit that the patch was taken from is the only thing that is undesired" that makes me wonder if the feature is too workflow specific. You do something on a temporary branch without worrying about producing unnecessary object name churn, and end up wanting not to see object names. But I can buy that a step in the workflow to rebuild the history on a temporary branch before going to the next step is a common thing to have, so let's decide to accept the goal as a good thing to have, and see how well the patched code implements, documents and tests the advertised new feature. Thanks. -- 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