"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:24:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes:
>> > So might it not be useful to tweak patch id to
>> > sort the diff, making it a bit more stable?
>> That is one thing that needs to be done, I think.  But it would be
>> unfortunate if we have to do that unconditionally, though, as we may
>> be "buffering" many hundred kilobytes of patch text in core.  If we
>> can do so without regressing the streaming performance for the most
>> common case of not using the orderfile on the generating side (hence
>> not having to sort on the receiving end), it would be ideal.  I am
>> not sure offhand how much code damage we are talking about, though.
> So make it conditional on the presence of the orderefile option?

That would mean that those who set orderfile from configuration in
the future will have to always suffer, I would think.  Is that
acceptable?  I dunno.

Also, if the sender used a non-standard order, the recipient does
not know what order the patch was generated, and the recipient does
not use a custom orderfile, what should happen?  I thought your idea
was to normalize by using some canonical order that is not affected
by the orderfile to make sure patch-id stays stable, so I would
imagine that such a recipient who does not have orderfile specified
still needs to sort before hashing, no?
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

Reply via email to