On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 06:01:01PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Here's a re-roll of the series I posted at:
> http://public-inbox.org/git/20160907075346.z6wtmqnfc6bsu...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
> Basically, it drops the time for "format-patch --cherry-pick" on a
> particular case from 3 minutes down to 3 seconds, by avoiding diffs
> on merge commits. Compared to v1, it fixes the totally-broken handling
> of commit_patch_id() pointed out by Johannes.
> We can drop the diffs on the merge commits because they're quite broken,
> as discussed in the commit message of patch 3 (they don't take into
> account any parent except the first). So what do we do when somebody
> asks for the patch-id of a merge commit?
> This is still marked RFC, because there are really two approaches here,
> and I'm not sure which one is better for "format-patch --base". I'd like
> to get input from Xiaolong Ye (who worked on --base), and Josh Triplett
> (who has proposed some patches in that area, and is presumably using
> them).


I'd love to see a more resilient patch-id mechanism, to make it easier
to match up patches between branches.  I don't think it makes sense to
talk about the patch-id of a merge commit (though it might make sense
for a merge which makes additional changes not present in any of the
parents).  Even if someone wants to match up merge commits with merge
commits, I don't think that should happen via patch-id; I think that
should happen in terms of "what patches does this merge introduce",
without constructing a merge-patch-id via a Merkle tree of commit

So, I think this patch series makes sense (modulo the comments about the
commit message in patch 3).  We already don't respect merge commits when
doing format-patch; this seems consistent with that.  If we ever make it
possible for format-patch to handle merge commits, then we should also
allow it to have merge commits as prerequisites.

- Josh Triplett

Reply via email to