On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 04:18:28PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:16:04PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Thinking about it some more, it's a best effort thing anyway,
> > > correct?
> > >
> > > So how about, instead of doing a hash over the whole input,
> > > we hash each chunk and XOR them together?
> > >
> > > This way it will be stable against chunk reordering, and
> > > no need to keep patch in memory.
> > >
> > > Hmm?
> > ENOCOFFEE
> > That was a silly suggestion, two identical chunks aren't that unlikely :)
> In a single patch, they should not be, as we should be taking into
> account the filenames, no?
> You could also do it hierarchically. Hash each chunk, store only the
> hashes, then sort them and hash the result. That still has O(chunks)
> storage, but it is only one hash per chunk, not the whole data.
Could be optional too :)
Or maybe just sum byte by byte instead.
> A problem with both schemes, though, is that they are not
> backwards-compatible with existing git-patch-id implementations.
Could you clarify?
We never send patch IDs on the wire - how isn't this compatible?
> sorting the data itself is (kind of, at least with respect to people who
> are not using orderfile).
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