On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 04:52:48PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Ulrich Spörlein <u...@spoerlein.net> writes: > > >> > 2. Why the hell is the commit hash dependent on the ordering of the > >> > parent commits? IMHO it should sort the set of parents before > >> > calculating the hash ... > >> > >> What would be the sort key? > > > > Trivially, the hash of the parents itself. So you'd always get > > > > ... > > parent 0000 > > parent 1111 > > parent aaaa > > parent ffff > > That would change the behavior of --first-parent. Or you'd need to > compute the sha1 of the sorted list, but keep the unsorted one in the > commit. Possible, but weird ;-).
Right. The reason that merge parents are stored in the order given on the command line is not random or because it was not considered. It encodes a valuable piece of information: did the user merge "foo" into "bar", or did they merge "bar" into "foo"? So I think this discussion is going in the wrong direction; git should never sort the parents, because the order is meaningful. The original complaint was that a run of svn2git produced different results on two different git versions. The important question to me is: did svn2git feed the parents to git in the same order? If it did, and git produced different results, then that is a serious bug. If it did not, then the issue needs to be resolved in svn2git (which _may_ want to sort the parents that it feeds to git, but it would depend on whether the order it is currently presenting is meaningful). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
