On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:36:10PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:37:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >> a) When asked to compute the patch-id of a seekable file, use the
> >> current streaming implementation until you notice a filename that
> >> is out of order. Then start over with sorted hunks (for example
> >> building a table of offsets within the patch for each hunk to
> >> support this).
> >> When asked to compute the patch-id of an unseekable file, stream
> >> to a temporary file under $GIT_DIR to get a seekable file.
> > This can be computed in one pass: just keep two checksums around.
> > But the result won't be stable: if you get same patch from two
> > people one is ordered, the other isn't, you get two different checksums.
> Sorry for the lack of clarity. In this case (a), I meant "sort the
> diff hunks and use the *old* patch-id definition with sorted hunks,
Well, then the result is not compatible with what
original patch-id would produce.
Basically you are either not stable or not compatible :)
> which produces a stable result but requires random access.
> >> b) Unconditionally use the new patch-id definition that is stable
> >> under permutation of hunks. If and when someone complains that
> >> this invalidates their old patch-ids, they can work on adding a
> >> nice interface for getting the old-style patch-ids. I suspect it
> >> just wouldn't come up.
> > That's certainly easy to implement.
> Yes, (b) seems like the best option to me, for what it's worth.
> Thanks again,
Just making sure: is it correct that there's no requirement to use same
algorithm between patch-ids.c and builtin/patch-id.c ?
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