On 2/26/20 10:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
As I said already, I do not think that the desire to get the bit-for-bit identical commit is compatible with the idea to discuss e-mailed patches---the pieces of patch e-mail will become "you may look at them, you may apply them, but it is no use to comment on them to get them improved". So, I dunno.
For me, at least, the goal was to be able to store previous patch submissions in git (even if it is not merged into the main tree) so that you can use git and all its tools (diff, log, blame, grep, notes, etc.) to browse previous versions and browse discussions _and_ use the SHA1 as a stable identifier for a specific submission. The point of having the stable identifier is so that the submitter can take comments into account and resubmit their patchset while still keeping a (stable, universal, unambiguous) reference to their previous submission. I don't see the incompatibility at all. The whole point was that the current email workflow used by Linux and git (that includes discussion, feedback, and revision) _does not need to change_. Vegard
