On 24.07.18 20:50, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Beat Bolli <dev+git@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 24.07.18 20:22, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>>> This was already fixed (differently) in >>>> <20180705183445.30901-1-dev+git@xxxxxxxxx>. >>> >>> Thanks for saving me from having to dig the list archive myself. >>> Yes, it is already applied to the tip of the topic that originally >>> caused the breakage. >>> >> Just a general question: >> >> Is it OK to refer to patches on pu with the Message-ID, or would you >> prefer the commit hash? The hash changes whenever you recreate pu, >> doesn't it? > > Either is fine in practice. The commits themselves on a topic > branch that is not yet in 'next' usually stay the same once the tip > of 'pu' that contains them gets published. Even though I often use > "git rebase -i", "git commit --amend", etc. to fix up posted patches > while turning them into commits on topic branches, I usually stop > doing so once I push out day's integration result. > > Until a new version of the series is posted to replace them on the > topic branch, that is. But at that point we are talking about new > patches with different message-ids that got turned into different > commit objects, so either commit object name or message id that > refer to older iteration would still name the same old version, and > new names would refer to the same new version. > Ok, thanks!
